Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

Conservation of Wild Life (Report)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning when the Report on the Conservation of Wild Life of the National Park Committee, promised early in 1947, will be available

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Silkin): The report referred to will be published as soon as possible after I receive it, which I understand I shall do in a few weeks time.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: In view of his great interest in public parks and his general character, will the Minister include the Chancellor of the Exchequer under the heading "Wild Life "?

Interim Preservation Orders

Commander Maitland: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning how many applications have been made to him for interim preservation orders under Section 8 of the Town and Country Planning (Interim Development) Act, 1943; how many orders have been approved; and whether any of them relate to open spaces controlled by local authorities.

Mr. Silkin: One hundred and six tree preservation orders have been submitted for my approval and of this number 76 have been confirmed and 24 are still under consideration. None of these orders

relates to open spaces controlled by local authorities.

Animal Clinics

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he will include in the "Planning Manual" the suggestion that local authorities wishing to establish animal clinics should consult the R.S.P.C.A. which, with the veterinary profession, has had considerable experience in this matter.

Mr. Silkin: I will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. It would, however, appear to be inappropriate that the "Planning Manual" should go beyond a general indication of the desirability of consultation with specialised bodies in matters of the kind referred to.

Mr. Janner: Will my right hon. Friend consider this matter very favourably because, after all, the Society holds a unique place and has a unique experience in these matters?

Mr. Silkin: Yes, Sir. I have said that I am considering it and if the Society has a unique place, then inevitably it will be consulted.

Bankside Power Station (Site)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether his attention has been drawn to the threat to the dominance of St. Paul's presented by the proposal to erect a large power station on Bankside facing the cathedral; and whether he will arrange for the Royal Fine Art Commission to be consulted about the proposal to use this site.

Mr. Silkin: Yes, Sir. The Government have, however, decided that this proposal must be allowed, provided that the electricity is generated by oil and that the building is set back from the river to allow the proposed road and promenade along the front. In the circumstances, the site must be regarded as settled; but the Royal Fine Art Commission will be consulted on the design of the building. I should add that despite the very urgent need of additional generating facilities, the Government, before agreeing to the use of the site, gave long and careful thought to the effect of the proposed building not only on St. Paul's, but also—a matter of major importance—its effect on the proposals in the County of London Plan for the redevelopment of the South


Bank. We are satisfied, however, that, with the safeguards proposed, the future of the South Bank will not be prejudiced by the power station nor, having regard to the distance across the river, can we accept the view that the historic dominance of St. Paul's will be threatened.

Mr. Keeling: Is the Minister aware that this proposal to put up immediately opposite St. Paul's a power station as big as St. Paul's, with two enormous flanking chimneys, will do irreparable injury to London, will be resented all over the British Empire, and will be hotly opposed by many Members of this House?

Mr. Silkin: This is not a new power station. There is one in existence already —

Mr. Keeling: A small one.

Mr. Silkin: —and this is a proposal to replace it.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a large body of opinion on this side of the House which is seriously disturbed about this development, and that it would indeed be an act of sheer vandalism if the panorama of St. Paul's dominating the City and the river were interfered with by this power station?

Mr. Silkin: It was because I was aware of the very strong feeling on the subject that the matter received very long and careful consideration, but I do not accept the implications which the hon. Gentleman has made.

Mr. Eden: In view of the concern which, very naturally, the House feels— and which the country will feel—may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether some method cannot be found of further informing the House on this matter? For instance, could not a model be made available so that hon. Members of this House could judge for themselves in this matter, as we are really dealing with the future of the finest monument in the City of London?

Mr. Silkin: That is a very valuable suggestion and one which I will certainly consider. I did say that the design of the building would be submitted for the approval of the Royal Fine Art Commission and a very eminent architect— probably the most eminent in the country

—responsible, but, as I say, I will consider the suggestion.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is not a question so much of the design of this building, because nobody doubts the possibility of good design, but a question of its site and scale, which will be disastrous from the point of view both of the amenities of the City and of Southwark; and will not the Minister realise that in those circumstances it really would be an act of the grossest vandalism to proceed with this proposal when there are alternative sites available lower down the river?

Mr. Silkin: That is the point. There is no satisfactory alternative, and that was one of the matters which was investigated.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: In his original answer the right hon. Gentleman referred to proposed safeguards; is the only safeguard that the Royal Fine Art Commission shall consider and approve the design, or are there other safeguards and. if so, what are they?

Mr. Silkin: I mentioned two. One was that the electricity should be generated by oil, and the other that the station would be set back from the river to allow the proposed road and promenade along the front.

Mrs. Leah Manning: Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether there is another site available, and does he not think that, in view of the fact that the bombing of the centre of London has given to some Londoners a view of the full beauty of St. Paul's for the first time, it seems such a pity that we should discount that by building another power station?

Mr. Silkin: There is no satisfactory alternative which would provide the electricity within a reasonable time.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what alternative sites were in fact considered and what were the objections which weighed against the adoption of one of them?

Mr. Silkin: I could give the answer, but it would be inappropriate within the compass of Question and answer. There was a site at Rotherhithe which was submitted by the London County Council but it was rejected because it would take at least two winters longer than the other before electricity could be provided.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

National Parks (Hobhouse Report)

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether in view of the urgent need for legislation establishing a series of national parks in this country, he will indicate when the Hobhouse Report will be made public.

Mr. Silkin: I have now received the Hobhouse Report, and I intend to publish it as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE

Regional Controller, South-West England

Mrs. Middleton: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether he has yet appointed a regional director or chief officer for the South-West of England to administer the National Insurance Act; what remuneration is to be paid for this post; and what qualifications and experience the person appointed, or to be appointed, will be required to have.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): The National Insurance Act, 1946, is not yet in operation, but for purposes of planning and preliminary operations I have appointed a number of regional controllers and deputy regional controllers, including a regional controller for the South-West Region. This appointment was made in December, 1946, and carries a salary scale of £1,220-£1,550. The qualifications of the officer appointed include experience of administration on a large scale in connection with insurance and social services.

Mrs. Middleton: Will the Minister give the House the name of the person concerned, and an indication of his qualifications? Will he also take steps, when further Press notices are made of appointments of this sort, to see that details of qualification and experience are included, so that the general public may know something about the people who are to undertake work of this character?

Mr. Griffiths: Details were issued to the Press, including biographical notes of the experience of this officer. The name of

the officer appointed is Mr. J. S. Pearce He has had many years' experience with the Ministry of Labour, and was a regional officer of the Assistance Board.

Personal Cases

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of National Insurance if he will explain the delay in answering inquiries by Mr. Washer, Plynlimmon, Chelsfield, Kent, particulars of which have been sent to him; and if he will take steps to deal with the matter immediately.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The particulars which the hon. Member sent me related to an inquiry by Mrs. Washer about her future position, and not by her husband. A reply was sent to Mrs. Washer on 15th April. She has also been seen by an inspector of the department who has explained the position to her. The delay in answering her inquiry is regretted. It was due to the very heavy number of inquiries regarding pensions received by my Department in recent months.

Sir W. Smithers: When will the Minister realise that a breakdown in administration is inevitable under State control? Will he take disciplinary action against those responsible for this inhuman treatment, and will he revert, as soon as possible, to this scheme being operated with the help of the friendly and approved societies?

Mr. Griffiths: I regret the delay, but I would point out that this scheme has never been administered by the approved societies, but by the administrative machine which I now have to use.

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of National Insurance why no reply has been received to communications sent by Mr. C. Carter, 16, Wickham Court Road, West Wickham, Kent, to his Department at Blackpool on 13th January, 17th February and 14th March; and if he will arrange for the matter to be dealt with immediately.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Mr. Carter's inquiry has now been dealt with, and he has been accepted as a voluntary contributor. I am having the handling of this case fully investigated, and will write to the hon. Member in due course.

Sir W. Smithers: May I, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, repeat my supplementary question on the previous Question?

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of National Insurance if his attention has been drawn to the case of Daniel McPherson, 31, Randolph Street, Cowden-beath, Fife, who claims to be suffering from pneumoconiosis which leaves him quite unfit for employment; and why this man is refused the treatment and compensation to which anyone suffering from pneumoconiosis is entitled.

Mr. J. Griffiths: My attention has been drawn to this case by the hon. Member on previous occasions. Mr. McPherson applied to the Silicosis Medical Board for a certificate that he was suffering from pneumoconiosis in April, 1946, and again in September, but on each occasion the Board, after clinical and X-ray examination, were unable to diagnose pneumoconiosis and consequently had to refuse a certificate. The Board's decision, which is given on the authority of not less than two members of the Board who are specially qualified to make a diagnosis of this disease, is conclusive for purposes of a claim to compensation.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that this man is totally incapacitated and that there is no question of any other complaint? Is he aware that the official statement sent in by his own doctor says there is a suggestion of pneumoconiosis? How can there be a suggestion of pneumoconiosis unless there are indications of pneumoconiosis?

Mr. Griffiths: The Silicosis Medical Board, with which I happen to have had a good deal of experience, has two functions, first, to diagnose this disease, and, secondly, to decide whether the disease incapacitates the worker, and if so, to what degree. In this case, a third application has been made by Mr. McPherson, and he will be examined in the near future. Perhaps the hon. Member will await the decision of the Board.

Mr. Gallacher: I hope that they will do a good job this time.

Disabled Ex-Servicemen (Consultations)

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Minister of National Insurance if he will give an assurance that he will consult with organisations representative of disabled ex-Servicemen before making regulations under Section 30 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries)

Act, 1946, and Section 30 of the National Insurance Act, 1946; and when such regulations are likely to be drawn up.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. I cannot yet say when the regulations will be made.

Unemployment Benefit (Waiting Days)

Mr. Walter Fletcher: asked the Minister of National Insurance what steps he proposes to take to rectify the anomaly arising from the fact that, during the recent crisis, people who became unemployed after 10th February did not have to put in the three waiting days before drawing benefits, whereas the mass of people rendered unemployed owing to the coal shortage before 10th February had to put in three waiting days.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The requirement of three waiting days still remains, but any such days occurring on or after 10th February may be paid for later, if certain conditions as to continuing unemployment are satisfied. On whatever date a change of this nature had been introduced, there would inevitably be a difference between the treatment of past cases and of those arising subsequently, but this cannot be regarded as an anomaly.

Mr. Fletcher: In view of the fact that the day chosen has no real substance, the stoppage having started a long time before, will he reconsider cases anterior to that date?

Mr. Griffiths: This change had to be made by regulation, and there are certain limitations which this House places on Ministers in making their regulations retrospective.

Unemployment Assistance, North Staffordshire

Dr. Barnett Stross: asked the Minister of National Insurance (1) what is the percentage of men and women on the register of the Unemployment Assistance Board in North Staffordshire who are no longer considered to be fit for normal work; and whether he will give a classified list of the incapacitating causes;
(2) if he will state the total number of men and women registered in North Staffs with the Unemployment Assistance Board for the month of March, 1947;


what age groups, in terms of 10-yearly intervals, they fall under; and the approximate duration of unemployment in each class.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The average weekly numbers of payments of unemployment assistance at employment exchanges in North Staffordshire in the four weeks ended 11th April, 1947, were 557 to men and 14 to women. These figures include 165 payments in supplementation of unemployment benefit. The other information asked for could only be obtained by special investigation but some of it will, I hope, become available from an inquiry which the Board are now making. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as the results are before me.

Dr. Stross: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we have in the staple industries in North Staffordshire an appreciable number of men who have suffered from industrial disease, particularly silicosis, who are compelled to go on working because there is no alternative suitable employment; and does he appreciate that I am asking these two Questions to obtain evidence upon which to ask for a shelter factory for such people; and if I obtain the evidence will he give all assistance?

Mr. Griffiths: We have recently brought the new unemployment benefit into operation, and I have been disturbed by the number of persons who have not been able to find employment over a long period. They number several thousands. We are making a special inquiry into these cases, and I hope shortly to be able to make the results of that inquiry known.

Silicosis Medical Board, South Wales

Mr. D. J. Williams: asked the Minister of National Insurance what steps he is taking to strengthen the staff of the Silicosis Medical Board in South Wales.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I am glad to be able to inform my hon. Friend that further steps were taken at the beginning of this year to strengthen the staff of the Board in South Wales when six new appointments were made, two of them to fill vacancies caused by resignation. There are now 15 doctors attached to the Board in South Wales as compared with 11 a year ago and eight two years ago.

Mr. D. J. Williams: asked the Minister of National Insurance the number of applications for certificates received by the Silicosis Medical Board from coalminers in South Wales and the numbers who were certified totally and partially disabled for the first quarter of 1946 and 1947, respectively.

Mr. J. Griffiths: During January to March, 1946, 2,312 applications were received and 2,424 cases were dealt with by the Medical Board, of which 1,230 were certified to be suffering from pneumoconiosis. The corresponding figures for this year are: applications received 1,520, cases dealt with 2,545, of which 840 were certified.

Mr. Williams: Can my right hon. Friend say when he will be in a position to give some reason for this remarkable and welcome decrease in the number of applicants?

Mr. Griffiths: I am having a special inquiry made. The reduction is very substantial, and I hope to be able to indicate that there is a "turn of the tide," and that we are beginning to conquer this dread disease.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS

Pension Books

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Minister of National Insurance why the pension books of Mrs. Dixon, 20, Shotwick Street, Liverpool, have not been returned to her since October, 1946; and if he is aware that the necessity to wait long periods each week at assistance board offices for payments, in this type of case, is resented by the applicants.

Mr. J. Griffiths: With regard to the first part of the Question, as I have already informed my hon. Friend, Mrs. Dixon has now received her pension book and full payment of arrears. As regards the second part, I am advised by the assistance board that there has been of late heavy pressure of work at the board's office in Shaw Street, Liverpool, which it is hoped soon to relieve by the occupation of additional accommodation. In the meantime every effort is being made to reduce the waiting time of pensioners at that office to a minimum.

Mrs. Braddock: Does the Minister think it necessary to take the old 10s. book


away from the pensioner and keep it while awaiting a decision on entitlement to the 26s.? Is he aware that the assistance boards do not make up the amount to 26s. while the applicant is awaiting a decision, even in those cases where the pensioner is obviously entitled to the extra 16s.?

Mr. Griffiths: The 10s. book should not be surrendered. If there are any cases of the kind that my hon. Friend has mentioned, I shall be glad to have them brought to my attention.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great deal of delay is caused by the new book being sent to the wrong post offices? Can steps be taken to avoid this in future? It has been occurring to a large extent in the Manchester area.

Mr. Griffiths: I appreciate that, but I am sure the House will forbear with me in that we have had to deal with at least 4,000,000 cases in a very short time. I regret very much that there has been a good deal of delay for the reasons referred to by the hon. and gallant Member.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is the Minister aware that in some cases where the books are surrendered an old age pensioner is informed by the Assistance Board officer that he cannot make any payment?

Mr. Griffiths: I shall be glad it my hon. Friend would bring such cases to my notice.

Local Authority Rates

Mr. Granville Sharp: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether he is aware of the hardship caused to many old age pensioners as a result of the recent substantial increases in rates levied by local authorities; and whether assistance board regulations permit the grant of corresponding increases in supplementary pensions.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Any old age pensioner who is in need can apply for a supplementary pension, and such pension is normally assessed under the regulations so as to take fully into account the actual rent and rates payable at any time.

Mr. Lipson: Does the Minister consider it part of his duty to watch increases in the cost of living as they affect old age pensioners, and to draw the attention of his colleagues to the facts?

Mr. Griffiths: We take all factors into account. I would point out that we have done more for these people than any previous Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Women (Recruitment)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Labour what has been the response to the Government's appeal for more women to enter industry up to date

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): The Government have not yet instituted a special publicity campaign to recruit women for industry owing to the dislocation resulting from the power cuts and shortage of solid fuel. Arrangements for making intensive appeals in the localities where the shortage of women is most acute are well in hand and will be instituted as soon as industrial conditions appear suitable.

Mr. Swingler: Will the Minister state when this campaign will begin, as this is a somewhat urgent matter in view of the Government's programme and economic survey?

Mr. Isaacs: As soon as the industrial conditions appear suitable.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Has the Minister considered offering some special inducement or incentive to women to go back into industry, in addition to doing their normal daily work?

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. We hope that the conditions, which have improved since the end of the war, will themselves be an adequate inducement.

Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he will be greatly assisted in his appeal to women if he can persuade his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give a lead on the question of equal pay?

Men (Retirement Age)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Labour the approximate number of men who retired from employment at 65 years of age during the quarter ended 31st March, 1947.

Mr. Isaacs: I regret that this information is not available.

Foreign Workers

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Labour how many foreign worker; were given employment in British industry during the quarter ended 31st March, 1947.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): I asume my hon. Friend refers to foreign workers brought into this country for employment. During the first quarter of the year, 1,226 Baltic women were brought from displaced persons camps in the British zone in Germany for domestic work in sanatoria and hospitals. During the same period our Department issued, on the application of individual employers, 285 permits for work in industry and 5,244 permits for domestic work in hospitals and private households. This is a total of 6,755.

Resettlement Advice Offices

Mr. Erroll: asked the Minister of Labour how the volume of work being carried out by resettlement advice centres compares with the amount carried out six months ago.

Mr. Isaacs: During October, 1946, and March, 1947, the average weekly number of inquiries made at resettlement advice offices was 29,731 and 21,006 respectively.

Mr. Erroll: While appreciating the very valuable work done by these centres, does the Minister intend to close them down as the volume of inquiries diminishes?

Mr. Isaacs: The questions of the necessity and advisability of closing down are now under consideration. In many cases the work has been transferred to the employment exchanges where there is a good number of inquiries, in addition to those which I have mentioned. It is intended to keep the service going, but not to maintain separate offices if they can be dispensed with.

Persons Over 45

Mr. David Renton: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that local authorities and other public bodies frequently stipulate when advertising for posts that no person over the age of 45 years should apply; that waste of trained and educated manpower results; and whether he will inform local authorities of the desirability of employing people over 45 years.

Mr. Isaacs: If the hon. Member will send me particulars of cases he has in mind, I will consider, in consultation with my right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland, whether any representations might properly be made to local authorities in the matter.

Mr. Keeling: Is the Minister aware that the Minister of Works, when appointing an architect for the new Colonial Office, first declined to consider any recommendation of architects over 45, and then chose one who was a long way over 45?

Mr. W. R. Williams: Will the Minister keep in touch with industry in general, because I understand that the same limitations and restrictions are being applied in industry generally?

Mr. Isaacs: The Question only applies to local authorities, but we have on more than one occasion urged employers not to be too" choosey about this age, because there are many men over the age of 45, especially in this House, who are competent and clever.

Ex-Prisoners of War

Mr. Renton: asked the Minister of Labour how many former Italian prisoners of war have been allowed to return to this country since 31st July, 1946, in order to work on farms; how many have been given permission but have not yet arrived in the United Kingdom; and how many applications by British farmers for the return of such men have been refused by his Department.

Mr. Baldwin: asked the Minister of Labour whether in view of the forthcoming shortage of agricultural workmen, he will now take steps to grant permission for the return of repatriated prisoners of war who desire to do so.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Over 450 applications have been made by farmers to be allowed to employ Italians now in Italy, most of whom are understood to have worked here in agriculture as prisoners of war. Hitherto such applications have been refused, but, I am proposing, subject to the usual conditions being satisfied, to grant permits to farmers who apply for permission to re-employ Italian exprisoners of war who worked in agriculture before their repatriation. I am not


at present contemplating any similar proposals in regard to Germans who have been repatriated.

Mr. Renton: Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House why there has been so many months' delay in coming to this necessary decision?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I should have thought that that would have been obvious. There are 200,000 Poles in this country whom we must get placed, with a special obligation in every case, and whose position cannot be prejudiced by bringing in other people.

Mr. Baldwin: In view of the forthcoming shortage of agricultural workers, and of the fact that no houses are being built for them, will the Minister reconsider his decision about German prisoners of war coming back to this country?

Mr. Ness Edwards: There is no intention to reconsider it. The door has been left open for Germans now here who are in agricultural employment and for whom farmers can provide accommodation. Farmers may apply for the retention of these Germans if they agree to stay in England. There is no intention to fetch Germans back from Germany.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Surely, it is not unnatural for a German prisoner to wish to go back to Germany to see his family before resuming his occupation with a fanner in this country?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Cases of that sort have not yet been brought to our notice. Farmers have been invited to apply for their retention. If there are such circumstances as mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, they will be sympathetically considered.

Mr. Nicholson: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his reply in the light of what he has just said, because I know that this applies in many cases?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Certainly.

Mr. John Morrison: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that Polish men cannot milk cows unless taught, as it is a woman's job in Poland, and will he take this into account in any change over?

Mr. Ness Edwards: We have a number of Polish women here.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the hon Gentleman say what are the usual conditions to which he referred?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The usual conditions are that, first, there must be accommodation, and, secondly, these prisoners will not be taking the place of available British workers.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: Is not the hon Gentleman aware that the Government next year will once again have to appeal to farmers to save the country, that they will not be able to do so if there is not sufficient labour, and that every means to increase the labour force should be adopted?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I agree. We are inviting the farmers to apply for available labour.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE (ARCHITECTURAL STUDENTS)

Mr. Martin Lindsay: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the length of the architectural course, he will arrange for all students who will have completed two years' national service by August, 1947, to be released in time to start, or resume, the architectural year which begins in September, 1947.

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. Any such arrangements would endanger the age and service scheme, because a great many other men could claim similar treatment. The architectural course is no longer than certain other courses

Mr. Lindsay: Is not the Minister aware that agricultural students are disadvantageously placed in that their course is for five years and there is no possibility of their being specially asked for, as in the case of university students who very often have much shorter courses, and which does affect the age and service group to which the Minister referred?

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir, I do not accept that. They are not disadvantageously placed compared with other people, but in any case we must be fair to those who are in the Forces and give them a chance to come out in their proper places.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING (SCOTLAND)

Requisitioned Houses, Edinburgh

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the concern felt in Edinburgh at the number of dwelling-houses suitable for the housing of homeless people by the corporation that have, with his approval, been requisitioned for use as office premises; and whether he will, in future, refrain from overruling the decisions of the town council.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): It would be inconsistent with my position as appeal authority in the type of case which the hon. Member has no doubt in mind if I were to give any advance undertaking that I would always accept the town council's view, whatever it might happen to be. I must be free to consider each case on its merits. Edinburgh is the main centre for Government Department headquarters in Scotland, and accommodation must be found for the staffs required by the Departments.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the provision of homes for the people ought to have priority over the provision of office accommodation?

Mr. Westwood: I have taken every factor into consideration, but it ought to be obvious to everyone that I must get accommodation for the Government staffs necessary to carry on the work of the country.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Could not the right hon. Gentleman reduce the staffs?

Aluminium Houses, Eastriggs

Mr. Niall Macpherson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when delivery will be made of the aluminium houses for Eastriggs which were due to be delivered last November.

Mr. Westwood: Aluminium houses were ready for delivery to Eastriggs at the beginning of last November, but because the work of servicing the site was at that time not sufficiently advanced they were erected on other sites in the county. The closing of the factory during the fuel crisis caused some further delay. But it is now hoped to start delivery during the first week in May.

Modernisation

Mr. Hoy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement as to the Report of the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee on the modernisation of existing houses.

Mr. Westwood: Yes, Sir. This Report was published last week, and copies were sent to all Scottish Members. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee for the careful study which they have made of the problem of the modernisation and improvement of existing houses in Scotland. Their conclusions and detailed recommendations will be of great assistance to the Government in considering this important subject. While a majority of the members of the Committee recommend that grants and /or loans for modernisation purposes should be made available to private persons, local authorities and housing associations, a minority are opposed to grants being given out of public funds to private persons and consider that these facilities should be extended only to local authorities. There is no possibility of Parliamentary time being found for legislation during the present session, and, as the House is aware, the Government intend that during 1947 available labour and materials should be concentrated on the completion of new houses. I am, however, considering the Committee's recommendations in detail and will make a further statement as to the Government's intentions before the Session ends.

Mr. Rankin: Would my right hon. Friend say whether modernisation includes keeping many of these houses from falling down?

Mr. Westwood: No, Sir. That would not be modernisation. No sensible local authority would agree to provide funds, either from themselves or the State, for houses which ought to be demolished. There is good property which could be modernised and this Committee went fully into the matter and made recommendations based upon it.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Tenure of Shop Premises (Report)

Lady Grant: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will ask that the Report of the Committee of Inquiry


into the Eviction of Shopkeepers may be presented to him well before 28th May, so that the results of the inquiry may be known to those under threat of eviction on that date.

Mr. Westwood: The Committee of Inquiry into the tenure of shop premises in Scotland held their first meeting on 18th April. I have no doubt that they will proceed with their investigations without delay, but at this stage it is impossible for me to fix a date for their Report.

Lady Grant: Will the Secretary of State consider taking measures to postpone evictions until the publication of the Report?

Mr. Westwood: I have not the powers to do that, and I am awaiting the Report, which, no doubt, will be presented to me as speedily as possible, containing the necessary recommendations, on which I can then take action, if necessary, to bring in legislation.

Mr. Carmichael: When setting up the Committee did my right hon. Friend make representations to them to consider submitting an interim Report, as that might get over the difficulty?

Mr. Westwood: At the moment I have not done that because they held their first meeting only the other day, but, as soon as is practicable when they get down to their business, I will ask them to consider the possibility of drawing up an interim Report.

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: Could not the right hon. Gentleman take powers under the Statutory Rules and Orders to deal with this?

Mr. Westwood: I am advised that I cannot do so.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Is it not a fact that, irrespective of the conclusions of the Committee, the shopkeepers can have no redress unless the Secretary of State himself brings in speedy legislation? Is he also aware that since the setting up of the Committee, Members on both sides of the House from all over Scotland are finding that shopkeepers in their constituencies arc threatened with increases in their rents, because the owners feel that they must "make hay while the sun shines" and so they announce increases? Will my right hon. Friend take steps speedily in regard to these threats?

Mr. Westwood: I have already indicated that I cannot take any action and that I will not take any action until the Committee make an interim Report or present their full Report to me. Anyway, there is not time for legislation dealing with this matter before 28th May.

Mr. Rankin: Will my right hon. Friend make known to the Committee as soon as he can the opinion—and the Scottish opinion especially—on both sides of the House with regard to the urgency of this Report?

Mr. Westwood: These questions and answers I am perfectly sure will be read by the Committee with interest, and they will know of the feeling in this House for a speedy Report.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not clear to my right hon. Friend and to every Member of this House that it is the robber Tory 'landlords who are responsible for this shocking state of affairs, and will he not take immediate steps to abolish them?

Potato Gathering (School Children)

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will arrange with the education authorities in Glasgow that they, in common with the other education authorities in Scotland, will agree to release schoolchildren for potato gathering.

Mr. Westwood: The Education (Exemptions) (Scotland) Bill, whch has reached the Committee stage in another place, provides that the Secretary of State may serve upon any education authority a notice stating the number of children in their area whose services will be required for potato gathering. It then becomes the duty of that authority, on the application of parents, to grant exemptions up to the number specified. Thus, if the Bill becomes law, no authority will be in a position to refuse to release children whose services are required and whose parents apply for their exemption, except on grounds specified in regulations to be made under Section 1 (3).

Colonel Hutchison: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake, as soon as this Bill becomes law, to serve notice on the Glasgow Education Authority in view of the shortage of all agricultural labour? If this Bill does not become law, will the


right hon. Gentleman use his well known powers of persuasion and influence on the Glasgow Education Authority to do the same as other education authorities are doing?

Mr. Westwood: I will be asking this House to pass the Bill which has been introduced in another place and which will give me power to deal with Glasgow and with any other authority so far as the provision for assisting with the harvest is concerned.

Double Summer Time

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has considered the resolution, a copy of which has been sent to him, passed at a recent meeting of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland demanding the immediate withdrawal of the application of British double summer time from Scotland; and what reply he has made thereto.

Mr. Westwood: Yes, Sir, I have considered the resolution to which my hon. Friend refers, and I replied to the Union's letter last Thursday. I assured them that the difficulties of farmers in Scotland are fully appreciated and that the decision to introduce the Bill which was recently passed was taken only when the Government were satisfied that material advantages would accrue on balance in the national interest. I indicated that no alteration in the periods of summer and double summer time as fixed for 1947 by the recent Act could be made without fresh legislation, of which I could hold out no prospect in the circumstances.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that the farmers and others are convinced that double summer time is not an advantage but a disadvantage to agriculture in Scotland; and could he not arrange to have a meeting with the farmers and have a full and free discussion on this matter with them, when, I am quite sure, they would be able to convince him that it is not an advantage?

Mr. Snadden: Is it not a fact that the National Farmers' Union in Scotland were at no time asked for their views on double summer time as was alleged by the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he introduced the Bill into Parliament?

Mr. Westwood: I do not know what was alleged by the Home Secretary, but I do know that they were consulted and I know that ultimately they realised—I do not say that they ever accepted—that we were facing a national situation that required certain action to be taken. This House has now passed the legislation and I have already intimated that there is no possibility of repealing this legislation this Session.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: In view of the fact that this has not been found to be practicable, why not withdraw it quickly? If a thing is found to be bad, surely, it can be withdrawn in one day?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Civil Prison, Singapore

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is yet able to give a reply regarding service personnel in the Outram Road Civil Prison, Singapore.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Bellenger): My hon. Friend should by now have received a letter dealing with this matter.

Mrs. Braddock: In view of the fact that this is a Question placed on the Order Paper, and that I am not the only one in the House interested in this matter, does not the Minister think that the answer should have been given to the House and not sent in a letter to myself?

Mr. Bellenger: I am quite prepared, if the House desires it, to read the letter out but I have answered the Question on the Order Paper.

Mrs. Braddock: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I wish to give notice that I will raise the matter again at the earliest possible moment.

Personnel, Egypt (Kit)

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will hold a full inquiry into the circumstances in which Forces personnel in Egypt have been issued with stockings, labelled a gift from the W.V.S., Hastings, as part of an Army issue and with underpants made of flour bags with buttons on, in view of the fact that orders have been given that from 1st April, 1947, they have to replace all kit; and if he will then issue a statement.

Mr. Bellenger: I am looking into this matter and will write to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Keeling: Can the Minister say whether there is anything unusual or unnecessary in pants having buttons?

Mr. Bellenger: I can only speak for myself. I believe that the custom varies amongst different people, but I think that that was not the only point of my hon. Friend's Question, which alludes to underpants made of flour bags.

Political Organisations, Eritrea

Mr. David Jones: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, following the permission of his Department to the people of Eritrea to form political organisations, Eritrean districts opened Ethiopico-Eritrean Unity Associations offices at Keren, Massawa, Adi Caieh, Senafe, Saganeiti and Adi Ugri, that huge assemblies took part in these inaugurations, particularly in Adi Ugri where 100,000 people participated; and whether he will take particular steps to bring these demonstrations of Eritrean public opinion before the Council of Foreign Ministers.

Mr. Bellenger: I am aware of the activities of this association, but reports of these meetings appear to have greatly exaggerated the number of people who attended them. There are, in Eritrea several political parties and different views are held on the subject of union with Ethiopia. No special permission is required for the formation of political organisations in Eritrea, where freedom of speech and association are recognised, and political parties have existed throughout the period of Military Administration. It would not be feasible to lay before the Council of Foreign Ministers records of the views expressed at all the political meetings in Eritrea. Resolutions passed at them are in any case usually communicated by their organisers to each of the Foreign Ministers.

Land Mines, Norfolk (Removal)

Mr. Gooch: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will arrange for the early removal of over 1,000 land mines still set in the cliffs between Mundesley and Sidestrand, Norfolk, pending which if he will enclose the whole area in which the mines are situated by an impenetrable fence.

Mr. Bellenger: Owing to the nature of the ground in which these mines were laid h would be highly dangerous to attempt to remove them. The area is fenced and danger notices are displayed. The local military authorities have been instructed to keep the fencing and notices under constant supervision and repair.

Mr. Gooch: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at an inquest on a man recently killed by a mine at the spot in question, it was stated that the cliffs between Mundesley and Sidestrand were bristling with sudden death, and will be give an assurance to those who want to spend a holiday there—and there are many people in the area who want to entertain them— that the entire coastline will be made safe?

Mr. Bellenger: I very much regret the death of the individual mentioned by my hon. Friend but I am afraid that to attempt to remove these mines which are laid in shifting soil would be highly dangerous to those who undertook that duty. I should be only too pleased to get them removed but I am afraid that I can do no more than guard the public as much as I can from them. I can hold out no hope of removing the mines.

Earl Winterton: Will the Minister resist the efforts which are being made in certain quarters to subject the Royal Engineers to quite unnecessary danger in removing mines which cannot be removed without danger to those Royal Engineers? Why should they risk their lives for the sake of holiday makers?

Mr. Medlicott: Is the Minister aware that a certain number of mines appear to have broken loose as a result of the action of the tides and that they are being found along other parts of the coast of Norfolk, and, while fully appreciating and sympathising with the point of view of the Royal Engineers, can my right hon. Friend give any help, because children are finding these mines quite regularly?

Mr. Bellenger: I do not think that there is so much danger from these mines breaking loose. If they do and we can tackle them, we will; but this particular area, I regret to say, must be fenced off from the public perhaps even permanently, because it is so highly dangerous to anybody who goes there, even including military personnel.

Earl Winterton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an answer to my question? There is considerable perturbation in some quarters that the Army are being asked, for the sake of holiday makers, to risk their lives, and will the Minister give an assurance that the land at these dangerous places will be fenced off?

Mr. Bellenger: I have a duty to the public, of course, but I shall certainly not risk unnecessarily the lives of soldiers.

Personal Case

Mr. Bramall: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will review the sentence of 84 days' detention passed on 14538111 Lance-Corporal K. Stedman, of Depot Battalion, R.A.S.C., Thetford, in view of the facts that this soldier was due for demobilisation on 11th December, 1946, and had been under arrest for 14 weeks prior to the court martial

Mr. Bellenger: Lance-Corporal Stedman was kept in open arrest before trial. In view of the nature of the offence to which he pleaded guilty, the sentence was lenient. It was reviewed in the normal course on 16th April, and as a result of this review instructions have been given for his release from detention. He will also be released from the Army shortly.

Territorial Army (Recruitment)

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make arrangements for British subjects, who were detained in France during the war in concentration camps or otherwise, to be eligible for recruitment to the T.A.

Mr. Bellenger: There is no intention of debarring British subjects, who were detained in France during the war in concentration camps, or otherwise. from voluntarily joining the Territorial Army, provided they come within the prescribed age limits and medical categories and are otherwise eligible according to the general regulations.

Colonel Hutchison: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to make that information known? Only last week there was a case of an individual of that kind who was refused because he had not served with the British Forces during the war. He was anxious to join but he was refused because he had not served

Mr. Bellenger: I hope the hon and gallant Gentleman will bring that case to my personal attention. I will certainly investigate it.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL TOURNAMENT, OLYMPIA

Major Bruce: asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to publish the balance sheet and accounts of the Royal Tournament to be held at Olympia from 12th to 28th June, 1947.

Mr. Bellenger: The Royal Tournament is not administered by my Department, but by the Royal Tournament Committee, with assistance from the Service Departments in the form of loan of personnel and equipment, which is furnished on the basis that all extra expense involved is met by the Tournament authorities. I understand that it has not been the practice to publish the balance sheet and accounts, though these are, of course, audited professionally. The three Services receive an allocation from the profits of each Tournament for Service charities. I am making further inquiries.

Major Bruce: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the veil of secrecy which has surrounded these accounts in the past has created an undesirable impression?

Mr. Bellenger: I do not think that there has been generally an undesirable impression, as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests, but I will certainly investigate the matter and let him have any further information that I can get.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Unused Credits

Mr. Sharp: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what procedure exists at the present time, and to what extent he is using it, whereby unused credits caused by favourable balances of trade with soft currency countries may be used to pay for purchases from hard currency countries.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): In some cases, our Monetary Agreements provide for settlement in gold. In others sterling may be acquired from third countries. Every effort is being


made, to secure value for our exports, directly or indirectly, in needed imports or acceptable currencies.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer say which of these alternatives has been used in the negotiations carried on with Belgium at the present moment—and almost concluded—because we have a considerable trade balance there?

Mr. Dalton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that particular question on the Order Paper.

Illegal Jewish Immigrant Camps (Cost)

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what part of the cost of erecting and maintaining illegal Jewish immigrant camps falls upon the British taxpayer.

Mr. Dalton: None, Sir.

Sir W. Smithers: May I ask the Chancellor whether it would not be a good and a deterrent policy to impose a communal fine on all areas in which terrorism takes place?

Mr. Dalton: That is another question.

Flood Damage, Salford (Assistance)

Mr. McAdam: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the decision to make Government grants to assist victims of the recent floods, he will now reconsider the refusal to contribute from public funds to the repair of the damage in Salford when the River Irwell overflowed last September.

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. As I have already told my hon. Friend, while sympathising very much with those who suffered damage in Salford, last September, I am afraid that I could not now apply public funds for this purpose.

Mr. Royle: May I ask my right hon. Friend what the difference is between losing everything one possessed in Salford in September and losing everything one possessed in the Fen district in March?

An Hon. Member: Six months.

Mr. Dalton: I would like to give a sympathetic reply to hon. Members representing Salford because I know what Salford suffered, but the point is that in

this national, nationwide catastrophe, great, exceptional measures were taken by the Government in several ways to deal with it. It was an exceptional catastrophe of nationwide significance and we cannot now, I am afraid—I am very sorry to have to say this, but I must say it—date it back to isolated incidents not nationwide, however much we may sympathise with those who suffered.

Mr. Hardy: In view of the fact that three Departments of the Government have already extended sympathy to these victims but nothing more, and that the Government have so generously agreed to contribute £1 million to the Lord Mayor's Fund in London, is the Chancellor aware that the Salford victims have paid a proportion of that £1 million, and why are they not entitled to assistance similar to that given to other people?

Mr. Dalton: All I can repeat is that I have great sympathy for Salford but I cannot, unfortunately, add to what I have already said. I have tried to make it perfectly clear.

Mr. McAdam: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at the first available opportunity.

P.A.Y.E. Forms

Mr. Keeling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will stop the issue of Pay As You Earn booklets to employers whose servants are not liable for Income Tax.

Mr. Dalton: P.A.Y.E. forms are only issued when there is reason to think that an employee, may be liable.

Mr. Keeling: Can the Chancellor say why a considerable number of eight-ounce packets of printed tables have been issued explaining how much people who are not liable for Income Tax would have to pay if they were?

Mr. Dalton: The hon. Gentleman's weighing machine is out of order. What he has received are—I have looked into the case with care—four thin slips. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] This has all been looked into. I am speaking of the hon. Member's case, which I have investigated. It is an exaggeration and an inaccuracy to speak of half-pound


packets. Four thin slips have been circulated to him because it was thought that one of his employees was liable to Income Tax.

Mr. Keeling: I was not speaking about myself at all.

Agricultural Disaster Fund (Farmers' Donations)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the donations which farmers make to the Agricultural Disaster Fund will be treated as a business expense for Income Tax purposes.

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir.

Mr. Hurd: Cannot the Chancellor be rather more generous in this matter as the Fund being raised on the present basis of subscription will be quite inadequate to meet the losses, which are estimated at £20 million?

Mr. Dalton: We gave £1 million to the Lord Mayor's Fund and I have given an undertaking on behalf of His Majesty's Government to make a contribution substantially equal to what is raised by this Fund. If we were to do what the hon. Member suggests, it would only be a rather indirect method of subsidisation through an individual's Income Tax. I think it is much better to do the thing in a straightforward and direct contribution.

Major Legge-Bourke: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that some of the contributors to this Fund have themselves suffered, and, being more well paid than some of the other sufferers, they have felt it incumbent on them to give what they can? Would not the Chancellor of the Exchequer make a special case in such circumstances?

Mr. Dalton: I repeat that the way to deal with this is for His Majesty's Government to make a straightforward and direct contribution from public funds rather than to make an exceptional arrangement about Income Tax.

Tobacco Duty

Mr. Erroll: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he had with the United States Government before deciding to raise the duty on tobacco.

Mr. Dalton: None, Sir.

Mr. Erroll: Would it not have been advisable to have some talks with the United States before raising this duty?

Mr. Dalton: His Majesty's Government, with the support of the House of Commons, determine the taxes in the United Kingdom.

Overseas Travellers (Allotments)

Mr. Richard Adams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sums were allotted during 1946 to travellers from this country for commercial and non-commercial uses outside the sterling area

Mr. Dalton: About £9 million and £13 million, respectively.

Mr. Adams: Has the Chancellor formed any estimate of the additional money that has been "maxintrated" through unorthodox banking channels?

Mr. Dalton: We are after these rogues. We have caught a few, and hope to catch some more.

Anglo-Italian Financial Agreements

Mr. G. Sharp: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give his estimate of the extent to which British holdings of U.S. dollars will be depleted by the operation of Article 8 of the Anglo-Italian Sterling Payments Agreement; how this compares with the estimated savings of U.S. dollars caused by the proposed reduction in the purchase of U.S. tobacco; and for what reason he has permitted this allocation of British holdings of U.S. dollars.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated liability in hard currencies for the current financial year occasioned through the convertibility arrangements in the AngloItalian financial agreements.

Mr. Dalton: I cannot give an estimate of our potential liability in hard currencies, since this depends not only on our own transactions with Italy, but upon Italian transactions with other countries in so far as these are settled in sterling. I agreed that net Italian sterling balances should be so available now, because the Italian Government, on their side, have agreed to hold and not to expend £10 million of these balances. Italy should be an increasingly good source of supply for this country.

Mr. Sharp: In view of the fact that the head of the Italian Financial Mission to this country described the pact as a great financial sacrifice and a great act of friendship on the part of the United Kingdom, can the Chancellor of the Exchequer say whether that sacrifice was the British holdings of dollars now made available to the Italians?

Mr. Dalton: I think that this gentleman on returning to his native land wished to give the best account he could of what he had been doing. I think that in some respects his description was a little hyperbolic. I do not regard this as a sacrifice. It was a good bargain for this country.

Sterling Balances (Norway)

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the last convenient date, the total of sterling balances held by Norway.

Mr. Dalton: I should prefer, for the present, not to go beyond the particulars contained in Table 30 of Cmd. 7099.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The Chancellor said that he was going to publish information. The table to which he refers gives no information at all except certain wide groups which make any appreciation of this impossible. Can the Chancellor state why he will not publish it, or, at any rate, say that a general impression of the situation shall be given?

Mr. Dalton: In the table to which the Command Paper refers, we published the particulars in certain wide groups, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman says, and I think at the moment, having regard to negotiations which are on foot, it would be on the whole better that we should leave it there. A little later on it might be convenient to break these tables down a bit, but I do not think the moment is quite ripe.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE (STAFFS)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will expedite

his inquiries into the number of civil servants employed by the various Ministries and take steps to secure a substantial reduction; and whether he will give the probable date of a report on these matters.

Mr. Dalton: I would refer the hon. Member to my statement on this matter on 17th April. A further Government statement will be made shortly.

Mr. De la Bère: Would the right hon. Gentleman give the "Economic Survey for 1947" a touch of reality, and might we know really whether the Government are treating this matter as at all urgent?

Mr. Dalton: It is one among a number of very important matters which are being considered just now.

Mr. De la Bère: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance with regard to this matter, which is one of great importance? Would it be possible to move the Adjournment or the Closure, or is there any other step I might take?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can always try but it does not always mean that he will succeed.

Mr. De la Bère: Might I try now, Mr. Speaker? The Government are doing nothing whatever about this matter. It is a crying scandal.

Mr. W. R. Williams: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to exercise similar care in any inquiry he makes with regard to a reduction of staff, particularly in Departments such as the Post Office, so that the reduction will not be of such an order as to prove a serious handicap to the industrial and commercial recovery of this nation?

Mr. Dalton: The size of the staff must be related to the problem to be solved. We must always remember that. When there are debates about policies, it must be remembered that a staff should be related to the problem to be solved.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting,

from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Arthur Greenwood.]

The House divided: Ayes, 262; Noes, 111

Division No. 131.
AYES.
[3.31 p.m


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Forman, J. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Adams, W T. (Hammersmith, South)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Mann, Mrs. J.


Alpass, J H.
Gallacher, W.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Austin, H. Lewis
Gibson, C. W
Mellish, R. J.


Awbery, S. S.
Gilzean, A.
Middleton, Mrs. L


Ayles, W. H.
Gooch, E. G.
Mikardo, Ian


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R


Bacon, Miss A
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Mitchison, G. R.


Balfour, A.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Monslow, W


Barstow, P. G.
Grenfell, D. R
Montague, F.


Barton, C.
Grey, C. F.
Moody, A. S.


Battley, J. R.
Grierson, E.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Bechervaise, A. E
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Belcher, J. W.
Gunter, R. J
Moyle, A.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon F J
Guy, W. H.
Murray, J. D.


Benson, G.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Nally, W.


Berry, H.
Hale, Leslie
Naylor, T. E.


Beswick, F
Hall, W. G.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Bing, G. H C
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Binns, J.
Hardy, E. A.
OldfieId, W. H.


Blackburn, A. R
Harris, H. Wilson
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Blyton, W. R.
Harrison, J.
Parker, J.


Boardman, H.
Haworth, J.
Parkin, B. T.


Bottomley, A. G.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Paton, Mrs F. (Rushciiffe


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Pearson, A.


Bowen, R.
Herbison, Miss M,
Peart, Capt. T. F.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Hewitson, Capt M.
Piratin, P.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Hicks, G.
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hobson C. R
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Bramell, E. A.
Holman, P.
Price, M. Philips


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Holmes, H E. (Hemsworth)
Pritt, D. N.


Brooks, T J (Rothwell)
House, G.
Proctor, W. T


Brown, George (Belper)
Hoy, J.
Pryde, D. J.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hubbard, T.
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Ranger, J.


Buchanan, C.
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverh'pton, W.)
Rankin, J


Burke, W. A.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Reeves, J.


Carmichael, James
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Rhodes, H


Castle, Mrs. B. A
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A
Richards, R.


Chamberlain, R. A
Jay, D. P. T.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M


Champion, A. J.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Robens, A


Chetwynd, G. R
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Cocks, F. S
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Coldrick. W
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Collick, P.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Royle, C.


Colman, Miss G M
Keenan, W
Sargood, R.


Comyns, Dr L.
Kenyon, C.
Scollan, T.


Cook, T. F.
King, E. M.
Scott-Elliot, W


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Shackleton, E. A. A.



Corvedale, Viscount
Kinley, J.
Sharp, Granville


Daggar, G.
Kirkwood, D
Shawcross, C N. (Widnes)


Daines, P
Lang, G.
Shurmer, P.



Dalton, Rt. Hon. H
Lavers, S
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Skeffington, A. M.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Leonard, W
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Lever, N. H.
Skinnard, F W.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Levy, B. W
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Deer, G.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Diamond, J
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S)


Dobbie, W.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Smith, S. H (Hull, S W.)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Lipson, D. L.
Soskide, Maj Sir F


Dye, S.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Stamford, W.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Logan, D. G.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Longden, F.
Stross, Dr. B.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Lyne, A. W.
Stubbs, A. E


Evans, John (Ogmore)
McAdam, W.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
McGhee, H. G.
Swingler, S


Ewart, R.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Sylvester, G. O


Fairhurst, F.




Farthing, W. J
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull. N W.)
Symonds, A, L.


Field, Capt. W. J.
McKinley, A. S
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Fletcher, E G M. (Islington, E.)
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Follick, M.
McLeavy, F
Thomas, D E. (Aberdare)


Foot, M. M
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Thomas, I O. (Wrekin)




Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
Wallace, H W (Walthamstow, E.)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Watkins, T. E.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Thurtle, E.
Watson, W. M.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Tiffany, S.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Timmons, J.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Willis, E.


Titterington, M. F
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Tolley, L.
West, D. G
Wise, Major F. J.


Turner-Samuels, M.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J
Wyatt, W


Usborne, Henry
White, C. F (Derbyshire, W.)
Yates, V. F.


Vernon, Maj. W. F.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N,E.)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Viant, S. P.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.



Walkden, E
Wilkins, W. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Wallace, G D. (Chislehurst)
Willey, F T (Sunderland)
Mr. Studholme and




Major Conant




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Pickthorn, K


Assheton, Rt. Hon R
Grant, Lady
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Baldwin, A. E
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D


Barlow, Sir J.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O


Baxter, A. B
Head, Brig. A. H.
Raikes, H. V.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Birch, Nigel
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Reed, Sir S (Aylesbury)


Boothby, R.
Hollis, M. C.
Renton, D.


Bower, N.
Howard, Hon. A
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hurd, A.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T




Bullock, Capt. M
Jeffreys, General Sir G
Ropner, Col. L.


Carson, E
Jennings, R.
Scott, Lord W.


Challen, C
Keeling, E H.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Channon, H
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Smithers, Sir W.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Snadden, W. M.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E
Spence, H. R.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lennox-Boys, A. T.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F C
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Strauss, H G. (English Universities)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray).


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Cuthbert, W. N.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A (P'dd't'n, S.)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McCallum, Maj. D.
Teeling, William


De la Bère, R.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N


Digby, S. W.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F


Dodds-Parker, A D
MacLeod, J
Touche, G. C.


Drayson, G. B.
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Walker-Smith, D.


Drewe, C.
Maitland, Comdr, J. W.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Eccles, D. M.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C (Bedwellty)
Medlicott, F.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Erroll, F. J
Mellor, Sir J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr, E.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir I
York, C.


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Fraser, H C. P. (Stone)
Neven-Spence, Sir B



Fraser, Sir I. (Lansdale)
Nicholson, G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Galbraith, Cmdr. T D.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Mr. Simmons and Mr. Hannan.


Glyn, Sir R
Peto, Brig. C H M



Second Resolution read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

REPORT [15th April]

Resolutions reported:

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

HYDROCARBON OILS (CUSTOMS)

1. "That, as from six o'clock in the evening on the fifteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-seven—


(a) the rate of any rebate allowed under Section two of the Finance Act, 1928, on the delivery for home consumption of—

(i) any oils which contain in solution an amount of hard asphalt of not less than one half of one per cent.; or
(ii) any oils of which not more than fifty per cent. by volume distils at a

temperature not exceeding 240 degrees centigrade, and of which more than fifty per cent. by volume distils at a temperature not exceeding 340 degrees centigrade,
shall be increased from eightpence pen gallon to ninepence per gallon;
(b) the duty chargeable by virtue of Subsection (2) of Section eight of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1945, on oils used in a refinery for generating heat, light or power, or for producing gas, shall cease to be chargeable.

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

TOBACCO (CUSTOMS)

2. "That, as from the sixteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, in lieu of the full and preferential duties of


customs theretofore chargeable on tobacco imported into the United Kingdom, there shall be charged on tobacco so imported of the descriptions set out in the first column of the following Table—.

(a) in the case of tobacco not being an Empire product, duties of customs at the rates respectively specified in the second column of that Table; and
(b)in the case of tobacco being an Empire product, duties of customs at the rates respectively specified in the third column of that Table.

Table


Description of Tobacco.
Rates of duty per pound.


Full rates.
Preferential rates.



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Tobacco unmanufactured: containing 10 lbs. or more of moisture in every 100 lbs. weight thereof:








unstripped
2
14
10
2
13
3½


stripped
2
14
10½
2
13
3⅞


containing less than 10 lbs. of moisture in every 100 lbs. weight thereof:








unstripped
2
15
10
2
14
1½


stripped
2
15
10½
2
14
1⅞


Tobacco manufactured. namely:








Cigars
3
4
5
3
1
5⅝


Cigarettes
3
0
4
2
17
11½


Cavendish or Negrohead
2
19
4
2
17
1


Cavendish or Negrohead manufactured in bond
2
17
4
2
15
4½


Other manufactured tobacco
2
17
7
2
15
7½


Snuff:








containing more than 13 lbs. of moisture in every 100 lbs. Weight thereof
2
16
10
2
14
11⅞


containing not more than 13 lbs. of moisture in every 100 lbs. weight thereof
2
19
4
2
17
1


and so in proportion for any less quantity

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the pro visions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

TOBACCO (EXCISE)

3. "That, as from the sixteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, in lieu of the duties of excise theretofore charge able on tobacco grown in the United Kingdom, there shall be charged on tobacco so grown of the descriptions set out in the first column of the following Table duties of excise at the rates respectively specified in the second column of the Table.

Table


Description of Tobacco.
Rates of duty per pound.



£
s.
d.


Tobacco unmanufactured:





containing 10 lbs. or more of moisture in every 100 lbs. weight thereof
2
13
1½


containing less than 10 lbs. of moisture in every 100 lbs. weight thereof
2
13
11½


Tobacco manufactured, namely:





Cavendish or Negrohead manufactured in bond
2
15
4½


and so in proportion for any less quantity.

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the pro visions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

TOBACCO (DRAWBACK)

4. "That, as respects tobacco on which there have been paid duties of customs or excise at the increased rates for which pro vision is made by any Resolution of the Committee of Ways and Means together with this Resolution, drawback shall be allowed at the rates set out in the following Table instead of at the rates set out in Part III of the Fourth Schedule to the Finance Act, 1943.

Table


Description of Tobacco.
Rates per pound


In respect of tobacco on which full customs duty has been paid.
In respect of tobacco on which customs duty at a preferential rate or excise duty has been paid.



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Cigars
2
18
10
2
17
3½


Cigarettes
2
15
10
2
14
3½


Cut, roll, cake or other manufactured tobacco
2
15
7
2
14
0½


Snuff (not being offal snuff)
2
15
4
2
13
9½


Stalks, shorts or other refuse of tobacco, including offal snuff
2
15
1
2
13
6½

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the pro visions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

ARTIFICIAL SILK (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE)

5. "That as from the first day of May, nineteen hundred and forty-seven—

(a) the duties of excise on artificial silk singles yarn or straw and on a licence to be


taken out annually by a manufacturer of artificial silk yarn shall cease to be chargeable; and
(b) the rates of duties of customs chargeable under Section four of the Finance Act, 1925, in respect of artificial silk yarn and tissues shall be reduced by sixpence and shall be as follows, that is to say:

artificial silk yarn
…
the lb.
…
9d.


artificial silk tissues
…
the lb.
…
11d.,

and the Silk Duties (No. 1) Order, 1934, shall have effect subject to the following amendments of Part II of the First Schedule to that Order (which sets out the rates of duties of customs on certain articles made wholly or partly of artificial silk), that is to say:

in the second column—

(i) for the words' An amount equal to 43⅓ per cent. of the value of the article or an amount calculated at the rate of 5s. the pound on the weight of the article, whichever is the greater 'there shall be substituted the words' An amount equal to 42 per cent. of the value of the article or an amount calculated at the rate of 4s. 8d. the pound on the weight of the article, whichever is the greater'; and
 (ii) for the words An amount equal to 43⅓per cent. of the value of the article 'where they last occur in that column there shall be substituted the words' Where any component is silk, an amount equal to 43⅓per cent. of the value of the article and where no component is silk, an amount equal to 42 per cent. of the value of the article ',
and Section nine of the Finance Act, 1933, shall have effect as if the preceding provisions of this paragraph of this Resolution were contained in an order made under that section:

Provided that nothing in this Resolution shall affect any drawback of duty allowable in respect of artificial silk or any article made wholly or in part of artificial silk where the duty became chargeable on the artificial silk whether before or after the passing of this Resolution and before the said first day of May, nineteen hundred and forty-seven,

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

ALLOWANCE FOR ARTIFICIAL SILK USED IN TYRES (CUSTOMS)

6. "That no allowance shall be paid under Section eleven of the Finance Act, 1946, in respect of any artificial silk on which a duty of customs has been paid contained in yarn or tissue used in the manufacture of tyres if that duty becomes chargeable on or after the first day of May, nineteen hundred and forty-seven."

PURCHASE. TAX

PURCHASE TAX (INTERMEDIATE AND HIGHER RATES)

7. "That—

(a) as from the sixteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, purchase

tax shall be charged in respect of goods of the classes specified in the following Table—

(i) where they are not goods of the classes specified in the Seventh Schedule to the Finance Act, 1942, at an intermediate rate equal to two-thirds of the value of the goods; and
 (ii) where they are goods of the classes specified in the said Seventh Schedule, at the higher rate; and
(b) the Treasury shall have power undo Section twenty of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, subject to approval by this House, by order to render chargeable at the intermediate rate goods not previously chargeable or chargeable at any other rate and to render goods previously chargeable at the intermediate rate chargeable at any other rate or not chargeable and the provisions of paragraph (a) of this Resolution shall have effect subject to any order under that Section.

Table

Domestic appliances and domestic apparatus, being appliances and apparatus of a kind suitable for operation from electric or gas mains, but not including—

lighting and wireless appliances and apparatus;

gramophones and player pianos:

clocks and parts of clocks;

warming pads and blankets;

hair drying machines;

infra-red and ultra-violet ray lamps and radiant heat lamps.

Lawn mowers of a kind suitable for operation from electric mains."

No. 7. Purchase Tax (Exemptions and Reductions of Rates)

8. "That, as from the sixteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, subject to any subsequent order under Section twenty of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940,—

(a) purchase tax shall cease to be chargeable in respect of goods of the class specified in Part I of the following Table; and
 (b) purchase tax shall become chargeable at the reduced rate and at the basic rate in respect of goods of the classes specified respectively in Parts II and III of the said Table.

Table

Part I

Class of goods becoming exempt

Domestic water filters designed to remove bacteria and other suspended impurities from drinking water by mechanical means, but not including filters also employing chemical reaction.

Part II

Classes of goods becoming chargeable at reduced rate

Floor coverings, including linoleum, but not including carpets, carpeting, rugs, mats, matting and wooden floor coverings.

Chambers not supplied as part of a toilet service, and chair pans and commode pans and lids for such chambers and pans as aforesaid.

Hot water bottles of a kind designed for use as bed warmers or foot warmers.

Requisites for cricket of the following descriptions—bats, balls, stumps and bails and wicket keepers' and batsmen's pads and gloves.

Footballs, and part of footballs, and footballers' shinguards.

Requisites for hockey, but not for ice hockey, of the following descriptions—sticks, balls and shinguards.

Boxing gloves.

Rowing boats specially designed as racing boats.

Part III

Classes of goods becoming chargeable at basic rate

Razor strops and razor sharpeners, but not including strops and sharpeners supplied as part of a toilet set.

Dental sticks and toothpicks."

INCOME TAX

CHARGE OF TAX

9. "That—

(a) income tax for the year 1947–48 shall be charged at the standard rate of nine shillings in the pound, and, in the case of an individual whose total income exceeds two thousand pounds, at such higher rates in respect of the excess over two thousand pounds as Parliament may hereafter determine;
(b) subject to the provisions of any Act of the present Session relating to transport or electricity, all such enactments as had effect with respect to the income tax charged for the year 1946–47, other than such enactments as by their terms relate only to tax for that year, shall have effect with respect to the income tax charged for the year 1947–48.

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

PERSONAL RELIEFS

10. "That—

(a) Subsection (r) of Section fifteen of the Finance Act, 1925 (which, as amended by subsequent enactments, provides for a deduction of tax on an amount equal to one-eighth, of the amount of earned income, but not exceeding one hundred and fifty pounds) and Subsection (2) of the said Section fifteen (which, as amended by subsequent enactments, provides, in a case where an individual or his wife has attained the age of sixty-five years and his total income does not exceed five hundred pounds, for a deduction of tax on a amount equal to one-eighth of his income) shall have effect as if the words 'one-sixth' were substituted for the words 'one-eighth' and the words two hundred and fifty pounds' were substituted for the words 'one hundred and fifty pounds';
(b) Section eighteen of the Finance Act, 1920 (which, as amended by subsequent enactments, provides, amongst other things, that the deduction of tax allowable in the case of married persons shall in certain cases be increased by an amount not exceeding seven-eighths of the earned income of the

claimant's wife) shall have effect as if the words five-sixths' were substituted for the words 'seven-eighths';
(c) Section twenty-one of the Finance Act, 1920 (which, as amended by subsequent enactments, provides for a deduction of tax on fifty pounds in respect of each child with an income of fifty pounds or less) shall have effect as if the words sixty pounds' were substituted for the words 'fifty pounds' in Subsections (s) and (3) thereof; and
(d) Subsection (1) of Section sixteen of the Finance Act, 1943 (which provides, amongst other things, that the deduction of tax allowable in certain cases in respect of a relative of the claimant or of his or her wife or husband who is maintained by the claimant is limited to cases where the total income of the person maintained does not exceed eighty pounds a year and that the allowance is reduced if the total income of that person exceeds thirty pounds a year) shall have effect as if the words 'one hundred and twenty pounds' were substituted for the words 'eighty pounds' and the words 'seventy pounds' were substituted for the words thirty pounds ';

Provided that the additional relief afforded by this Resolution for the year 1947–48 shall not affect the amount of tax deductible or repayable before the seventh day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-seven.

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

FARM ANIMALS

11. "That, save in so far as may be otherwise provided by any Act of the present Session relating to Finance, animals and other living creatures kept for the purposes of farming or for the purposes of any trade whatsoever shall be treated for income tax purposes as trading stock or, in so far as an option conferred by the said Act to have them treated on an alternative basis has been duly exercised as respects them, on that alternative basis; and that where such an option is availed of or is or has been or may become available, such other consequences shall ensue for income tax purposes to all persons then or thereafter concerned as may be provided by the said Act."

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF

12. "That the extent and incidence of in come tax, for the year 1946–47 and subsequent years of assessment, shall be varied so as to give effect to amendments of the law relating to the effects of provisions in arrangements with the governments of territories outside the United Kingdom for the crediting, against United Kingdom tax, of tax payable under the laws of those territories."

TRANSFERS OF ASSETS UNDER COAL INDUSTRY NATIONALISATION ACT

13. "That, as respects past, present and future years of assessment, the law applicable to the income tax of the National Coal Board and the other persons concerned shall be amended -in relation to cases where, whether before or after the passing of this Resolution,


assets vest in that Board by virtue of any of the provisions of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946."

EXCEPTIONAL DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCES

14. "That any exceptional depreciation allowance in respect of a building or structure for the year of assessment in which the appointed day (within the meaning of the Income Tax Act, 1945) falls shall, for the purposes of Section four of that Act, be written off as at the end of the immediately preceding year of assessment, and this Resolution shall apply to all years of assessment, including the year 1946–47."

BENEFITS PROCURED FOR DIRECTORS AND EMPLOYEES

15. "That it is expedient to impose liability to income tax where benefits (including benefits which are to be enjoyed only on the happening of particular contingencies) are or are to be procured or provided by bodies for persons who, as directors or otherwise, are taking part or are to take part or have taken part in the management of their affairs, or by employers of any kind for persons who are or are to be or have been their employees."

PROFITS TAX AND EXCESS PROFITS TAX PROFITS TAX

16. "That the extent and incidence of the profits tax (for past and future chargeable accounting periods) be varied so as to give effect to amendments as to the rate of the tax, the scope of the tax, the computation of profits and losses for the purposes of the tax, the relief to be given for double taxation and the other conditions subject to which the tax is charged."

EXCESS PROFITS TAX

17. "That the extent and incidence of excess profits tax (for all chargeable accounting periods) be varied so as to give effect to amendments as to the meaning of the expression 'remuneration' in reference to directors and to provisions operating where there has been a direction under Section twenty-four of the Finance Act, 1943."

LEGACY AND SUCCESSION DUTIES

CHARGE OF ADDITIONAL DUTY

18. "That there shall be charged on legacies derived from a testator or intestate dying on or after the sixteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, and successions arising on or after that day, on which legacy or succession duty is payable or has before that day been paid under the enactments now in force, a further legacy or succession duty at a rate equal to the rate of aggregate rate of the duty thereon under those enactments; and this Resolution shall apply also to other legacies and successions so as to authorise charging the further legacy or succession duty thereon on deaths and other events happening on or after the said sixteenth day of April."

STAMPS

CONVEYANCES, TRANSFERS AND LEASES

19. "That the stamp duties charged under or by reference to the headings Conveyance or

Transfer, whether on sale or otherwise,' 'Conveyance or Transfer on sale of any property 'and' Lease or Tack' in the First Schedule to the Stamp Act, 1891, shall be double those now chargeable, but this Resolution—

 (a) shall not affect the operation of any enactment limiting an ad valorem duty to ten shillings in certain cases;
(b) shall not apply to the duty chargeable on any conveyance or transfer on sale, other than of any stocks (including units under a unit trust scheme) or marketable securities, or to the duty chargeable in respect of any consideration other than rent for a lease at a rent not exceeding twenty pounds a year where the conveyance or transfer or the lease is not a transaction, and does not form part of a larger transaction, or of a series of transactions, in respect of which the amount or value of the aggregate amount or value of the consideration exceeds fifteen hundred pounds; and
(c) shall not apply to the duty chargeable on a lease (other than a lease operating as a voluntary disposition inter vivos) for an indefinite term or a term not exceeding thirtyfive years where the sole consideration is a rent not exceeding one hundred pounds a year."

STOCKS, MARKETABLE SECURITIES AND LETTERS OF ALLOTMENT, &C.

20. "That

(a) the stamp duties charged on marketable securities, share warrants and stock certificates to bearer, and on other instruments to bearer, shall be double those now chargeable;
(b) the stamp duties charged under Section one hundred and fourteen of the Stamp Act, 1891, as amended by subsequent enactments, and under Section thirty-seven of the Finance Act, 1939, by way of composition for the stamp duty chargeable on transfers of certain stocks and the stamp duty charged under Section one hundred and fifteen of the Stamp Act, 1891, as amended by subsequent enactments, by way of composition in respect of the transfer of certain stocks (including units under unit trust schemes) and otherwise shall be double those now chargeable;
(c) the stamp duties charged on contract notes in respect of stocks (including units under unit trust schemes) and marketable securities shall be double those now chargeable; and
(d) the stamp duties charged on letters of allotment, letters of renunciation and other documents having the effect of a letter of allotment, and on scrip certificates and similar documents shall be double those now chargeable."

LOAN CAPITAL, BONDS, MORTGAGES, &C.

21. "That—

(a) the stamp duty charged on loan capital under Section eight of the Finance Act, 1899, shall be double that now chargeable;
(b) the stamp duties charged under or by reference to the headings' Bond, Covenant or Instrument 'and' Mortgage, Bond, Debenture, Covenant and Warrant of


Attorney' in the first Schedule to the Stamp Act, 1891, shall be double those now chargeable; and
(c) the reference in the heading 'Bond given pursuant to the directions of any Act', &amp;C., in the said Schedule to duties of excise or customs shall include a reference to purchase tax."

BONUS ISSUES OF SECURITIES

22. "That where on or after the sixteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, a company issues any shares or other securities or increases the rights or reduces the liabilities attached to any shares or other securities and does so by way of bonus to members or debenture holders of itself or of another company, a statement shall be made of the value of the bonus, and that statement shall be charged with an ad valorem stamp duty of ten pounds for every hundred pounds or part of a hundred pounds of the value of the bonus, and any Act of the present Session relating to Finance may contain provision—

(a) for determining how far any. matter is to be treated as being by way of bonus to any persons, and in particular for so treating an issue if the offer is limited to those persons or if in connection with the issue those persons receive preferential treatment; and
(b) for determining the value of the bonus."

MISCELLANEOUS

ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES RESERVES FUND

23. "That the sum of nine hundred and seventy-three thousand and forty-one pounds fourteen shillings and sixpence be paid out of the Essential Commodities Reserves Fund into the Exchequer."

Orders of the Day — HYDROCARBON OILS (CUSTOMS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

3.41 p.m.

Mr. Erroll: I beg to move, in line 7, to leave out from "oils," to "of," in line 8, and to insert "not being light oils."
The present Resolution removes the duty of 1d. a gallon from fuel, diesel and gas oils, but, as at present worded, it does not specifically include kerosene, and the effect of the Amendment is to bring kerosene within the range of duty-free oil. The steps taken in the Resolution are welcomed on this side of the House as representing a concession to industry, but we are deeply disappointed to find that kerosene has not been included in oils from which the duty is removed. When the duty of 1d. a gallon was originally

imposed in 1933, the purpose was to help the coal industry, and kerosene was included I imagine as much as an oversight as for any other reason, because the consumption of kerosene in those days was extraordinarily small. Since 1933, however, the consumption of kerosene has gone up considerably, particularly in the field of agricultural tractors which use tractor vapourising oils, in other words kerosene. In the 14 years since the development of the original tax, the number of tractors engaged has gone up by several hundred thousand and all using kerosene are at present paying a tax of id. a gallon on every gallon they use. Some 95 per cent. of the vapourising oil in this country is used by agricultural tractors, so it is really a tax on agriculture. We all know what a hard winter agriculture has had, and my hon. Friends and I were hoping that the Chancellor would be able to remit this duty for the benefit of the agricultural community this spring. It is a particularly unfair duty, because, as the Resolution stands at present, the tax of 1d. per gallon is removed from diesel oil for diesel fuel tractors. We have the anomalous position that while diesel oil tractors go tax free, vapourising oil fuelled tractors have to pay the tax of 1d. per gallon. On the grounds of logic and consistency alone it seems that the tax should be removed from tractor vapourising oil.
3.45 p.m.
There is a further reason why the tax should be remitted. Tractors using tractor vapourising oil are those used by the small man, whereas the diesel tractors are used on big farms for deep ploughing of large tracts of land. By reducing the duty, it would be a great benefit to the small farmer, the man who is probably more seriously hit than any other member of the farming community. There is another and more unwelcome development regarding the use of oil fuel in the agricultural industry. There has been a considerable increase in Gulf prices in the last few months, which I think will be reflected in the next few months in domestic prices. One way to offset that increase of prices would undoubtedly be if the tax on tractor vapourising oil could be remitted. Rather more than half the kerosene used by this country is employed in driving tractors. The remaining 45 per cent. or so is used in the form known as burning oil for paraffin lamps, paraffin heaters, and paraffin


cookers. Kerosene is essentially used for lighting and warming the poor man's home in rural areas. If kerosene used as burning oil could be excluded from the tax, it would be essentially of benefit to the relative poor agricultural worker.
The total quantity involved is not very large. My hon. Friends will probably be elaborating in detail some of the figures. Some 630,000 tons of burning oil are used each year, so that the total quantity is relatively small: On the other hand, the remission of tax would represent a great deal of benefit to the small rural workers' families who have to rely upon paraffin as a means of lighting and heating their homes. Well-to-do people do not require paraffin, and, therefore, would not benefit. It is essentially a help to the poor man in agriculture which is proposed, and in regard to tractor vapourising oil the small farmer with his small light-weight tractor would be benefited. I hope the Chancellor will see his way to accept the Amendment, the cost of which would not be great, but the value of which would be enormous.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I beg to second the Amendment.
There are arguments in favour of it, from the purely agricultural aspect and from the domestic aspect. I think it is fair to say that, in 1933, it was openly avowed that the duty on heavy hydrocarbon oils was introduced in order that assistance should, indirectly, be given to the sale of coal. That as a basic reason for reversing the process now, would appear to be perfectly sound. If by reducing the duty now, the demand on coal were to be reduced, I think it would be of very great national assistance. Anyone looking at the matter on that broader ground, would wish that the Chancellor should give way and lessen the demand for a product which we know is bound to be in very short supply. I also advocate the change, from the point of view of the cost to the country.
One hesitates in these days to come forward with any proposal to reduce the national revenue in any form, more particularly as His Majesty's Government, with a vast majority, are burdening us with such heavy expenditure. We have to face up to the need for meeting those demands so long as that majority exists, but I think this case is rather outside the ordinary field of request. To retain a

duty which in any shape or form adds to the production costs of agricultural produce, whilst at the same time heavy subsidies exist on food, is not either right, or reasonable, or, if I may say so, sane. It seems to me to be going an extraordinarily long way round to do what is nothing more than taking money out of one trouser pocket and putting it back into the other, after it has passed through many hands, including those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There again, we have a fundamental reason for asking the Chancellor to reconsider this tax. To those who are actually engaged in production, it does not appear right to start this money off on this long career, when we are quite overburdened enough with a considerable Civil Service, which has to handle these complicated manipulations. We should simplify that sort of thing as much as we possibly can.
Finally, on the question of burning oil, the oil used for heating, cooking and lighting, in rural districts, it is quite impossible, at present, in spite of the wishes of all those engaged in agriculture and the expressed opinion of all responsible bodies in the agricultural world, including an official committee, which was set up by His Majesty's Government, to improve, under the present Government, the condition of rural housing in the way we should like to see it improved. It is equally impossible to expect that electricity generating stations will be able to carry a heavier load than they are carrying today. We know that they cannot carry the load with which they are burdened at present. It is, therefore, quite impossible that these more remote rural districts, where, in fact, the greater part, of the burning oil is consumed for heating, cooking and lighting, can be served by electricity or gas. In those conditions, as we are dealing with those who are mainly employed, either directly on, or in connection with, the production of foodstuffs, the Chancellor should show that he really appreciates that the worker on the land is entitled to inducements and encouragement just as much as the worker below the soil. We are not asking that the farmer's wife or the farm worker's wife should get nylon stockings or additional supplies of food, or that additional houses should be rushed up at greater speed than they are being rushed up—or not rushed up—in other areas. We are saying that by reducing these duties, to


meet a specific case, some inducement would be given to those who have carried on without praise and thanks through some of the toughest days and one of the toughest winters which this country has known for a long time.

Mr. Baldwin: I do not wish to repeat the statements which have already been made, but I intervene to say something which is vital, and which cannot be too often repeated. I ask the Chancellor to remember that it is the smaller farmer who uses the light tractor, and also that the women who would be helped by this concession are those who live in the outlying cottages, and who have not got the benefit of electric light. It would be some little gesture to the farming community and would help towards meeting the extra costs which have been put on the industry, by the introduction of double summer time, which has just come into operation. The concession here asked for would help,' to the extent of a few thousand pounds, to meet that extra expense.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: I sincerely trust that the Chancellor will give consideration to this very reasonable Amendment. I am quite sure from what the Chancellor has said, in regard to the losses which the farmers have sustained, that he realises to the full the tragic losses that they have incurred. If, by means of this Amendment, which involves no great sum of money, he can help the farmers, I am sure that all Members of the House would be with him. I wish to bring one point to the Chancellor's notice. He may have thought in introducing his Budget that this particular point had not been given consideration prior to its introduction. A fortnight ago, in the enchanting little village of Lanreath, I was approached on this matter by many constituents of mine. Here is a chance for the Chancellor, by agreeing to this Amendment, to lift a certain amount of tax connected with vaporising oil for tractors, and to relieve, to a certain extent, the expense of people in rural areas who are using paraffin in their homes. I hope that the Chancellor will give sympathetic consideration to this proposal.

Mr. Spence: I support this Amendment from the Scottish angle. Scotland would probably derive more benefit from the Amend-

ment than any other part of the country, because we have in Scotland a larger number of small farmers; we also have, in Scotland, very hilly country to work, which usually means a higher consumption of ploughing fuel. For bah those reasons, the concession contained in this Amendment would be of great benefit to my part of the world. Further, in Scotland, the rural development of electrification is probably less than it is in England. It would be of great benefit to the crofters and to those who live on the land if the tax were taken off paraffin for cooking, lighting and heating. I put in one special plea for something to be done for Scottish agriculture. We have had this curse of double summer time put upon us. It hits us harder than it hits farmers in England. To mitigate its evils, will the Chancellor not give us this small concession?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): Hydrocarbon oils, which are the subject of the discussion this afternoon on this Resolution, are divided into two groups. It is as well that the Committee should remember that in discussing the Amendment. There are light hydrocarbon oils which, in the main, cover petrol, and the heavy hydro-carbon oils, which cover lubricating oil, kerosene, which is the subject of this Amendment, and heavy fuel oils. It is the heavy fuel oils with which my right hon. Friend proposes to deal by means of this Resolution. At the moment the tax on these heavy oils is 1d. per gallon, whereas on the light oils—petrol—the tax is 9d. It is proposed that the tax on the heavy fuel oils shall now disappear, that a further rebate of rd. shall be given, wiping out the Customs duty altogether. It is in accordance with the announcement made by my right hon. Friend in August last year that he intended to do this in his next Budget. He did it—he was quite open about it—in order to assist the coal industry of this country.
4.0 p.m.
The Resolution does not apply to kerosene, and the proposition is that we should include kerosene for two reasons. One is, that it would help the cottager who still, unfortunately, has to burn lamps; and the other is, that it would help the agricultural industry both here and in Scotland. The hon. Member for


Altrincham (Mr. Erroll) pointed out that this Resolution puts diesel engine oil in the same category as the heavy oils that, in fact, are being exempted now under this Resolution. The diesel road vehicle engine oil will continue to pay the duty. It is not exempt under this Resolution. In fact, any oil which goes into a road vehicle, whether a heavy oil or petrol, is not under this Resolution exempt. The provision made in the Finance Act, 1935, still applies; and, up to the moment, at any rate, my right hon. Friend does not propose to alter what, at the moment, is the law. If we exempted kerosene there would, undoubtedly, be some pressure for exempting petrol, which is also used in tractors.[HON. MEMBERS No."] At any rate, that argument would be put forward, and if there is a case for exempting kerosene, there is certainly, an equally strong, if not a stronger, case for exempting petrol which is used in agricultural tractors; because in one case the tax is only a penny on the gallon, whereas in the other it amounts to 9d. a gallon.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting to the House that there are petrol-driven agricultural tractors. Petrol is used in starting some of them, but there are no petrol-driven agricultural tractors.

Hon. Members: There are.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I accept that point, which, I think, is a valid one. It is true that the overwhelming number of tractors used—certainly on heavy land—[HON. MEMBERS: "On farms."]—do work on heavy fuel, that is, diesel oil; but, nevertheless, it is also true—and will, I think, be found to be increasingly so as the years go on—that petrol is used in many of these vehicles certainly in those which do the lighter work on some farms. If we did include kerosene within the terms of this Resolution it would, in our view, at any rate, open the door to the exclusion of petrol used on farms. The cost at the moment of the concession which my right hon. Friend is making in this Resolution is in the neighbourhood of £4,250,000 in a full year. If kerosene were included, and if the Amendment were accepted, it would add another £1,500,000 to the cost. If, in addition, lubricating oil, which would be one of the few things left among heavy oils, were included also, it would make the cost of the concession £2,000,000, or thereabouts, in a full year.
May I say this finally? My right hon. Friend is not able to accept this suggestion, but that that does not mean that he is not open to argument when the further stages of this matter are reached. We still have the Finance Bill to deal with. I can give no undertakings or make any promise on behalf of my right hon. Friend, but he is willing—I think I can say this on his behalf—to look at this; and if a case were made out, and if he were impressed by it, he would be willing to see what could be done when we reach the Finance Bill.

Captain Crookshank: We are very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the assurance he has given, because we are satisfied that there is a case here. It is true that there is such a thing as a petrol-driven tractor today. But the number is minute. It is something which is new.[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It may develop, but it is not true to say that, broadly speaking, tractors are petrol-driven in this country. They are not. If, therefore, assistance can be given in this way it will be welcome. I feel certain that it would have been given in 1933 had Parliament at that time been able to foresee the vast increase in agricultural mechanisation. I am sure Parliament at that time would have seen to it there was not a duty on what might be called, almost, one of the raw materials of the agricultural industry—one of the motive powers. Tractors in those days were few and far between. Since the war, as the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, there has been a terrific increase in mechanisation. In fact, is is claimed in some places that ours is now the most highly-mechanised of the agricultural industries in Europe. I say that from hearsay; I have not at the moment checked it. But if that possibility had been foreseen all those years ago, it is very likely that this duty would not have been imposed, and we should not have to discuss it today.
I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman is so open-minded on that point. I take it that that applies to the kerosene point, too, irrespective of user? It may be—I do not know—that one can make some distinction between the two. We feel that there is also a very valid argument for heating and lighting for the cottager. The kerosene position is very difficult in the countryside. Those of us who sit for agricultural constituencies are


very conscious of it each year. We need not however prolong the discussion today, because we have the right hon. Gentleman's assurance, and we know that he will look into it.

Mr. Charles Williams: The Chancellor of the Exchequer through the Financial Secretary has given us some assurance. As far as I am concerned, I regret to see the invidious position in which the Financial Secretary is placed. There is one point I would add to what has been said from this side. We have had the agricultural point of view put before us. There is another side, also. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor has intimated, through his assistant, that it may be possible to encourage the farming community at a later stage. But there is another aspect which is of some small interest in connection with food production. It is not often used, but this particular oil is also, at times, used in fishing vessels. I give that as one additional argument for our case. It is a matter which I think ought to be considered; and even although it might be only a small one, it would be a contribution to help an industry which is most useful to the country at the present time. I put this suggestion forward in a friendly way.

Mr. Erroll: In view of the helpful answer given by the Financial Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Question again proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. Assheton: When the right hon. Gentleman was introducing his Budget he devoted a short passage to this Resolution, and I, for one, was very glad at the way in which he put this case, because it is certainly not a proposal one would normally expect to come from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to this House. He said:
It is not a joyful thing, but it is a national necessity, to import more oil to make good the shortage in our own supplies of coal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1947; Vol. 436, c. 71.]
I was glad to hear him say it was not a joyful thing; that on this occasion there was no song in his heart, no cardiac murmur; that he realised what a serious

thing it was for this country to have to take such action. I am sure that no Member of the House, no matter on what side he sits, would disagree with me, that it is a sad thing for Britain that we have to encourage the use of imported oil from overseas, to take the place of the coal of which we have plentiful supplies beneath our own soil. We must all look forward to the day, which I hope is not far off, when the production of coal will be adequate to meet all the demands which we can possibly make upon it and will also provide us once again with large quantities of coal for the export trade, without which we shall fare very ill in this country.
There is one other point which the Committee ought to have in mind in dealing with the question of conversion from coal to oil-burning. It must not be thought that this is an economical proposition in itself. If I might illustrate it by the case of the railways, I would say that the railway companies have been invited—I would almost say commanded— by the Government to convert a certain number of locomotives to oil-burning. This is a very expensive business. Not only is conversion an expensive business itself, not only is the cost of the oil greater than the cost of coal for running the locomotives, but, in addition, expensive installations are required up and down the railway system, comprising tanks to hold the oil. All this is an additional expense in which we are now involved, because we have not got enough coal. I am sure that no hon. Member on this side of the House will wish to vote against this Resolution, but I did wish to express my agreement with the Chancellor when he said that this was not a joyful thing.

Mr. Erroll: I would like to say that there is still a certain apprehension among manufacturers and others that, when the coal position is perhaps rather easier, this duty might be reimposed. I know that it would not be fair to ask the Chancellor to make any commitment regarding the future, but I do not think this Resolution should be passed without it being placed on record that a number of manufacturers are deferring their proposals to change over to fuel oil, because of the fear that the duty may be reimposed. There are very considerable possibilities in the change over, but these


possibilities will be limited unless the manufacturers can be given a reasonable assurance that the duty will not be reimposed.

Orders of the Day — TOBACCO (CUSTOMS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House cloth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Captain Crookshank: I wonder if the Chancellor will explain this Resolution.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): Later on.

Captain Crookshank: Then, I will make a few observations on this subject from our point of view. I am sure that the Chancellor will not be surprised if this Resolution leads to a certain amount of discussion. The language used in this Debate will probably be different from the language about this duty that can be heard outside; no doubt, we shall keep our comments within the bounds of Parliamentary discussion. But there is bound to be discussion on a matter like this, as there always is, when there is a drastic increase in taxation. On other occasions, the House is apt to be divided on party lines, because the wise Chancellor, in framing his Budget, not only acts on what he thinks are the right financial grounds, but, generally, has some regard to keeping in line with the political principles of the party which he adorns. In this case, I doubt if the right hon. Gentleman's proposals are any more agreeable to his own supporters than they are to those on this side of the House. I am speaking of this particular tax in the form in which it is being imposed in this Resolution. We are discussing today what was proposed by the Chancellor, and the form in which it is proposed in the Resolution now before us.
I should say that, if this Resolution, in this form, were left to a free vote of the House, the right hon. Gentleman would not get it. I do not suppose that that is going to happen, but the Chancellor is going to have to walk very warily, both today and later on, until he gets something on the Statute Book. I very much wonder—and, of course, we have all been wondering—what exactly were the real motives by which the right hon. Gentle-

man was actuated. Like so many other things in this life, I think they were pretty mixed. At one time, perhaps his idea— and it would not have been a bad idea from that point of view—was to propose something so very drastic, as to be a real psychological shock to every citizen of the country, to make them realise how difficult our financial position was. If that is what he had in mind, I am prepared to affirm that this topic and the financial situation in which we find ourselves have been the main subject of conversation everywhere for the last week.

Mr. Dalton: Mr. Dalton indicated assent.

4.15 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: Whether in clubs, pubs, buses, trains or elsewhere, this is the matter which has been generally talked about. If that was the Chancellor's idea, he has succeeded, but there is more in it than that. There is, among other things, £75 million in it. I want to say a word about the Imperial Preference rate. Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to give us some explanation with regard to that? It is a matter on which he knows we, and many others in this country, feel very strongly, and we have, in fact, had no explanation about it even after my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) posed the question why the preference rate has remained at the same number of pence per pound, although the basic duty has been increased somewhere in the region of 50 per cent. Before this new proposal, it was 1s. 6½d. and it is still 1s. 6½d. That means that, if the Preference percentage before the rate was 4¾, it is now in the region of three per cent., and it raises the point whether, if we have a margin on a piece of paper and we double the piece of paper, we have to double the margin, or leave it as it was, or what? One would think that the margin would have gone up with the increase in the duty, but it has not. We should like to know what actuated the Government; whether there are any agreements on the subject, and whether the 1938 Trade Agreement with the United States completely prevents it? It would have been nice if the right hon. Gentleman had saved us the trouble of asking that question.

Mr. Dalton: I thought I had better wait.

Captain Crookshank: It may be that the idea of the right hon. Gentleman was


to give a great shock to the nation, but that is not his admitted reason, which is to save dollars. He repeated that three times in the course of three days, and, when the right hon. Gentleman says something three times, he presumably means it. In the Budget speech the right. hon. Gentleman, however, said:
I regard the saving of dollars as much more important than an increase in the revenue in this connection."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1947; Vol. 436, c 88.]
Then, so as not to be out of it, when my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities was speaking, the Chancellor interrupted and said:
I said that in my view the first "—
that is, the reduction of dollar expenditure—
was incomparably the more important. I said I was very much more concerned to save dollar expenditure than to collect additional revenue."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1947; Vol. 436, c. 211.]
Then, in winding up the Debate, the right hon. Gentleman said:
I have repeated several times that I am primarily concerned here to save dollars."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1947; Vol. 436, C. 464.]
And, of course, the ever-faithful Financial Secretary said, in his winding-up speech, that the prime object of the duty was deterrent. So far as the two Ministers are concerned, they have pinned themselves on the necessity for saving dollars. As a sort of excuse, apart from the general financial and economic one, the right hon. Gentleman expresses the opinion that we are smoking much more than, as a nation, we can afford. Here I want to take great exception to something which the right hon. Gentleman said on the wireless in this connection, because I was one of those who heard his broadcast. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) was unlucky; he did not hear him. I heard him say—I took the words down myself:
All people, including Mr. Churchill, have told me that we are smoking too much.
I do not know what private conversation may or may not have passed between the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, but I do know that my right hon. Friend has never said any such thing here. The right hon. Gentleman produced a quotation on Thursday which certainly did not say that.[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I

have got it here; we need not dispute it. What my right hon. Friend said in a supplementary question on 4th February last was that other expenditure should be viewed with severe restraint by the Chancellor. That is a very different thing from the right hon. Gentleman going to the B.B.C. and telling the world and the people of this country that Mr. Churchill has told him that we are smoking too much. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman, in proposing a most unpopular tax, was trying to hide himself behind the broad back of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs. Leah Manning: May I interrupt for one moment to remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that the occasion on which the Leader of the Opposition did raise this point very acutely, was when he said that if a friend had lent him money, that friend would expect him to spend the money on things of real value and not in the profligate way in which we were spending dollars? Whether he mentioned tobacco, I cannot say, but it is certain that he indicated tobacco and films.

Captain Crookshank: Be that as it may, I still think that it is no justification for the right hon. Gentleman saying what he did in the broadcast, and that, if the Chancellor wishes to introduce unpopular taxes, he should do so on his own responsibility, and not try to bring in my right hon. Friend. That would be in consonance with our ordinary political practice. I only make the point because I happened to hear the broadcast. Others did not. Perhaps they were lucky; I do not know. What my right hon. Friend said the other day was that, if it was the right hon. Gentleman's desire to save dollars on nonessentials, we were with him. He agreed that the saving of dollars on non-essentials has to be achieved, if possible. It has all to be looked at very carefully, but it has also to be remembered, in the context of the argument, that the saving which the right hon. Gentleman has put as his target is only 2½ per cent. of the expected dollar expenditure this year. That is a very small proportion of the expenditure that we are going to incur. On the other side of the argument, we have to put some of the disadvantages.

Sir Arthur Salter: One and a half per cent., not 2½ per cent.

Captain Crookshank: That makes it all the worse from that side of the argument. But if the purpose, which was three times repeated by the Chancellor and once by the Financial Secretary, is to try to cut down the dollar expenditure, then I cannot see the value of doing it this way, when there is no certainty that the purpose is going to be achieved, when we could get certainty at once, by proposing some limitation on the amount of dollars put at the disposal of tobacco purchasers. But that is not what the right hon. Gentleman has done. He is hoping; he has put a target; he is going to make an appeal that everybody should smoke less, and he hopes that it will come off, but it does not follow that anything of the kind will happen. If, on the other hand, he imposed some limitation on the amounts of dollars available, he would be certain that he would save those dollars, and he would know where he was. What he is really doing, in effect, is gambling during the whole of the 52 weeks of the financial year that there is going to be a similar reduction in tobacco to that achieved in the first week. It is a very big gamble, because all the previous history of the tobacco duties has been the same. When they were first raised, there were two or three weeks of diminished purchases; then the situation gradually righted itself. Tobacco has always been a commodity the purchase of which has gone on increasing; there has always been more consumption by the end of the year than, there was at the beginning. I think that that is a fairly accurate record of what has happened in regard to the duty on tobacco. Therefore, there is no certainty that the right hon. Gentleman will get his saving in dollars. He said that if we tried to limit imports without imposing any form of rationing:
That would simply lead to queues and confusion, and difficulties on an immense scale."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1947; Vol. 436, C. 464.]
There have been suggestions that that would involve black marketing, and all the rest of it. In that connection, I must say that I rather resent the general accusation that people of this country are so ready to indulge in the black market. Taking the country as a whole, I do not think that is true; I do not think it is true that we are as dishonest as all that. That is a bad thing to go out from this House. I believe that we can argue this further, and no doubt it will be argued.

If one set one's mind to it, I am sure there are various ways in which savings could be effected. I have heard—and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has heard —all sorts of proposals. We might make smaller cigarettes; we might have cardboard ends to them, like so many other countries; we might adopt the practice, which existed until recently, and for all I know still exists in the United States and exists still in certain countries in Europe, that smoking should be prohibited in a great number of places, such as theatres and cinemas. That sort of thing might lead to a gradual reduction. All those things should be explored before we come to the drastic and terrible alternatives which the right hon. Gentleman has put before the nation.
After all, he has to remember that, even though he is putting up the Tobacco Duty so enormously, on the other side of the picture and in another part of the Budget, he is releasing quite a considerable amount of purchasing power. He has told us that 750,000 are going to pass out of Income Tax. Some of the money thus retained will be available, if people so desire, to pay for the increased cost of their smoking. There may, alas, be a diminution in savings, because a lot of people in this country may even be so misguided—I am not commenting on that —as to prefer a cigarette to a savings certificate. The right hon. Gentleman may find his estimates about that going astray.
4.30 p.m.
We say that this is a bad tax on the grounds on which the right hon. Gentleman defends it. His grounds are that it is in order to save dollars. We say it is a bad device to achieve that purpose, because he does not know that he will save a single dollar out of it, and he may end up by having to find more dollars during this year than during the last 12 months, because people may go on smoking more even at the higher cost. Let us take the other side of the argument. The right hon. Gentleman said, "If that happens, we lose on the swings of the dollars and we gain on the roundabouts of the pounds. I may not save the amount of dollars I want, but on a 25 per cent. reduction I will get more revenue to the extent of £75 million sterling this year." We are against the tax on that argument. I am not going to raise the whole budgetary issue of the financial and


economic situation; any Chancellor, of course, would have to raise some millions from somewhere.
We know that there has been a change in the views of hon. Members opposite on the subject of direct and indirect taxation. Last year I think it was the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) who said that their philosophy was gradually changing on the matter of the desirability of removing something from direct taxation, and putting it on to indirect taxation, because I remember telling her that her philosophy moved in proportion to the number of people who were suddenly finding how unpleasant it was to pay direct taxation. On Wednesday the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Scott-Elliot) expressed the same sort of view. There is a change from the old-fashioned theory upon which the Socialist Party used to act. We are not against that idea, as hon. Members know quite well. What we are against is that in a given year one particular form of indirect taxpayer should be singled out, and that the whole of the burden should be put upon him to such a crushing extent.
If the right hon. Gentleman wanted to get £75 million out of indirect taxation, the fair thing would be to spread it over, so that everybody would pay a little indirect taxation, unless, of course, there are some paragons of all the virtues who never purchased anything at all. But to say that the smoker only should be singled out and should pay such an increased price means that the greatest—I am not sure if I ought to call it a hardship, because I do not know in what category one should put smoking, but let me call it a difficulty which is a rather simple word—the greatest difficulty of this high tax will fall upon that section of the community on which one does not want to see it fall, namely the oldest and poorest section and, from the trading point of view, on the smallest trader as opposed to the large one. The difficulties of the small tobacconist will be enormously enhanced. The large shops which sell tobacco and cigarettes will not suffer in anything like the same way. The poor old man, the old age pensioner, or whoever it may be, will feel the blow proportionately much more than those at the other end of the Income Tax scale. That is because this increase has been so very savage.

Mr. Scollan: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that that applies to all indirect taxation?

Captain Crookshank: Not at all. It does not apply to all indirect taxation but it certainly applies in this case. I am only talking about this Resolution. I am not talking at large on the subject of indirect taxation. We, on this side, take the view that the right hon. Gentleman has been fantastically unfair, and we are surprised at such unfairness from one who so often in his speeches has stressed the importance of fair shares all round. That is not only his whole political philosophy, but he has tried to make it his financial philosophy in his Budgets. Then suddenly he comes down with something which is quite contrary to anything which he has adumbrated in the past. We get this extraordinary situation. We have, on the one hand, the reason adduced that the purpose of this increase is to reduce the extent of our dollar purchases, and it is done in such a way that there is no guarantee at all that that end will be achieved, but there is this consolation to the Chancellor that if that does not occur he will get more money, provided it succeeds. If it does not succeed, and we have to use as many dollars or more dollars, the £75 million becomes a very much larger sum. He will get that, but it will be at the expense of the poor and the, old, and the small trader. That is the effect of this Resolution. It is a bad tax, and there is no denying that it must be modified. I do not doubt that it will be modified, but there is this difference. Before Budget day, the right hon. Gentleman was not at liberty to have any conversation with anybody concerned. Now he can discuss it with the trade, and see whether they can make any alleviations. He can listen to the arguments in this House, and the tax may emerge in a form very different from its present form.
The point is, What are we to do with this Resolution today? We are not voting on the possible modifications. We are voting upon this proposal. In the view of my right hon. Friends and myself, the proposal is a bad one. We trust that, as a result of our comments and comments elsewhere, there will be enough support for our view to make it necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this most unfair proposal which brings the


greatest difficulties on those least able to afford to pay, whether they are traders or consumers. It is for that reason that we oppose the Resolution: I would certainly be interested to hear the defence which the right hon. Gentleman may put up, but I hope he will agree that the sort of case I have outlined does require an answer, and I hope we shall get one. In the meantime, the Resolution as printed on the Order Paper is bad and we oppose it.

Mr. Shurmer: I think it is true to say that a good way to find out how the public are reacting to this tax is for Members to ascertain how those in their constituencies feel, now that they have gone back to their corners after receiving the blow in the ring. I made it my business, as I did during the coal crisis, to try to find out the reaction of my constituents. While no one likes the increase, it is amazing to see how the people have realised that, at last, they have got to be pulled up on the amount of their smoking. I made it my business to go round my constituency —not with a Gallup poll, nor relying on what the Press told me, because I am not prepared to place any reliance on a Gallup poll. In my short time in this House, I have been amazed to witness the somersaults of hon. Members opposite. I suppose all hon. Members have seen, as we in Birmingham have seen during the last 18 months, many posters bearing the words, "Shed the Socialist load," "Socialists still going wrong," and "You voted Labour; you have got it hard." I suppose we shall get some posters dealing with cigarettes. In one of the little districts of Birmingham, where people could not buy three pennyworth of coal before the war, we had a poster showing a man sitting by a fireplace with a candle, and bearing the words, "Socialism in our time." I have never seen such piffle in all my life.
As I have said before in this House, I have lived in slums, by choice, for a number of years. There, before the war, one met people who were prepared to walk into a shop and ask for two cigarettes and a couple of matches, but who, since the war broke out, have been able to buy packets of 20 every day of the week. Girls and women, who never thought of smoking before the war, admitted to me during this weekend that they now smoke

at least 30 and 40 cigarettes per day. I think the Chancellor is doing a number of people a good turn, apart from the question of collecting the tax on tobacco. Small retailers are obviously doing an enormous amount of trade; it is to their advantage that girls as well as men should smoke, and should be able to purchase a large number of cigarettes. We know that there are a number of people in this country, small wage earners, who have not had any concession made to them in this Budget, who feel this very badly. I have been amazed at the unselfishness of ordinary people, and I believe that if the Chancellor can find some way out of this, he will go up in the esteem of those unselfish people.
I now wish to refer to a section of the community which, as we know, will get a concession as far as their postwar credits are concerned, namely, the old age pensioners. In Birmingham, we have an organisation known as the Sons of Rest. In practically every district, old age pensioners join together, and have a hut in a park in their district, where they meet during the day, spend their time together, playing cards" having a smoke, and so on. We ought to be prepared to find some concession to make to these old age pensioners. It has been said that we ought to have a rationing scheme. The right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) tells us that we ought not to talk about the "black market." But we know full well that a lot of people would sell their coupons, or exchange them, or traffic in tobacco, because a great many people do not smoke. Of course, there are a number of old age pensioners, but their number is small in comparison with the rest of the community. I cannot see why an opportunity could not be given to old age pensioners to purchase two ounces of tobacco at pre-Budget prices, on the same lines as those on which they obtain their tea on green coupons. We owe it to these people who are in the eventide of their lives, who want to live happily and comfortably, to see that they can enjoy a smoke. I believe the people of this country would stand this blow of extra taxation on tobacco and cigarettes if the Chancellor eased the position for old age pensioners.
I end my plea by saying, that I am prepared to give up a certain amount of smoking. For instance, if I smoke five


cigarettes per day, one cigarette every two hours, that will be no punishment at all. If I allow myself an extra five cigarettes at the end of the week, that gives me two packets of cigarettes. If I buy them at the new price I shall be saving money every week. I urge the Chancellor to consider this. I hope he will leave the door open. By doing what I ask, he will regain the respect of everybody, whatever blow he gives them, provided he looks after the old age pensioners who have earned their rest in the industrial field. Some people talk about an extra shilling a week for old age pensioners. I hope the day will soon come when we shall raise the old age pension; I think we shall do so when the country gets a bit more stable. At the present moment we cannot do it. I hope the Chancellor will consider this question of rationing. I feel confident it will work all right, and the old age pensioners and the rest of the community will thank the Chancellor if he accepts our plea.

4.45 p.m.

Sir Patrick Hannon: In order to indicate to the House the unity of purpose which prevails in Birmingham, I rise to endorse the appeal made by the hon. Member for the Sparkbrook Division of Birmingham (Mr. Shurmer). I think there is a case for these old people which merits serious and sympathetic consideration. I believe the hon. Member and myself have both been vice-presidents of the Sons of Rest. These old people, after a long career of service in industry, have formed these associations, and have community meetings in order to talk and have a smoke together. It would be a pitiful thing if the Chancellor, in all his exuberance and generous consideration for every branch of the community of this country, left these poor people out of account. I appeal to his kindness, and to his faculty for looking kindly upon everybody. I hope he will react favourably to the suggestion made by my hon. Friend opposite. I call him my hon. Friend because, in spite of many acute political differences, we have been constant friends for the last quarter of a century. There is an intimate friendship between all of us in Birmingham; in that great community we understand one another.

Mr. Shurmer: The hon. Member is not offering me a membership form for his party, is he?

Sir P. Hannon: I wish to be very emphatic in endorsing the appeal just made to the Chancellor. There is a good case for making a concession to these people. The Chancellor will realise from communications which reach him, from the volume of correspondence which comes to hon. Members, and from the Press, that there is, indeed, a real grievance on the part of these old people, whom this tobacco tax will strike very severely; it will make their declining years more uncomfortable than we should like to see. The Budget as a whole is, I think, an adventurous one. It does not do very much to the community, except to pave the way for the nationalisation of industry—the building up of a great fabric with which the old, poor people have not very much to do. The Chancellor has not made many concessions to Birmingham in the course of his life. Here is an opportunity. [HON. MEMBERS: Oh."] I am bound to say, I cannot imagine he stands very high in the affections of Birmingham. I cannot recall any particular instance on which he has made any special concession.

Sir A. Salter: Would not a concession to the old age pensioners of Birmingham affect old age pensioners elsewhere?

Sir P. Hannon: My appeal is on behalf of Birmingham. If the concession is made to Birmingham, naturally it will extend to all other parts, and to all old age pensioners. I plead for everybody. Here is a chance for the Chancellor to perform a good deed today. In the record of the Chancellor of the Exchequer I do not think a long list of good deeds will stand to his credit. Here is an opportunity for him, by answering the appeal made by the hon. Member for Sparkbrook, for a concession in regard to tobacco for old age pensioners and the Sons of Rest. If the Chancellor makes this concession, then the hon. Member and myself will, indeed, have succeeded in extracting something from a difficult and hard Chancellor in his financial policy.

Mrs. Castle: I think one of the most encouraging things about the increase in the tobacco tax, with all its unpleasantness, is the evidence it has afforded that the country is waiting for a


strong lead in regard to the curtailment of dollar imports. The welcome given to this increase in a large number of quarters shows that people have become mentally prepared for the sacrifices which our foreign exchange position will inevitably force upon them; but that is the reason I am anxious about the expedient which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has adopted. I believe it will fail, and I believe that during the period while we are watching its failure evolve, we shall have lost valuable time in closing the floodgates that must be closed at once.
My first experience after the increase in the tax was to walk into my usual tobacco shop and see a notice, "No cigarettes." I tried the next tobacconist's shop up the street; I asked him what was the reaction, and he said there had been a smaller falling off this time than occurred even with the increases in previous Budgets. I believe that those people who' have a margin of money in their pockets will inevitably and gradually creep up back to their old consumption over a period of time, and we shall find that, at a moment when we need urgent action, we are only playing with a desperate problem.
I ask the Chancellor to consider also that the ordinary people who will be forced by financial stringency, absolutely compelled with no alternative, to reduce their tobacco consumption, are the very people who have not been responsible for the one-third increase in consumption; they are the people at the lowest end of the scale, with fixed incomes, who have absolutely no margin for increased expenditure upon luxuries. When I think of the thousands of old age pensioners in my constituency, when I think how they have to scrape and save to get their food and to have a tiny margin over for the little bit extra, the odd pipe of tobacco or the packet of cigarettes, I know two things —first, that they are not the people who, as the years have gone by, have expanded their consumption of tobacco, they are not the people who are responsible for pushing up our imports and, secondly, they are the people who will be compelled to retrench when others will be able to find devices for evading the effects of this tax.
The Chancellor says that his motive is almost exclusively to reduce our imports, but this tax really is a revenue-raising tax as well. After all, he said he was asking us to cut out one cigarette in four, just

to pass over that one, which would not be noticed. Arithmetic is not my strong point, but I think I have worked it out correctly when I say that one in four means five in 20 I smoke 15 cigarettes a day, and my 15 cigarettes will still cost me 2s. 6d.; and, therefore, for the 15 cigarettes there is an additional 2d. imposed, on a commodity which it is very hard these days to say is a luxury to which the poorest sections of the community have no right to consider themselves entitled.
What, then, are we to do about it? I believe it is asking too much to tell the old age pensioners and the lowest income groups that they are the people who have to bear the burden of this patriotic duty. I appreciate the difficulties when considering any question of discrimination in favour of old age pensioners, and I would point out to those who suggest, as an alternative to a rationing scheme, that there might be some means whereby the old age pensioners would get a voucher for some tobacco at pre-Budget prices, that this would leave as big a margin for black market manipulation as any other device; in fact, I think it would leave a bigger opening for black market manipulation than would a straightforward rationing scheme with an alternative, such as sweets or tobacco. Let us look at the question not only of the old age pensioner, but of his wife. As one who has fought long, and will continue to fight, for certain equalities of treatment, I hope no hon. Members will suggest that the old age pensioner male should have a tobacco ration more cheaply than his wife.

Mrs. Manning: I should.

Mrs. Castle: I certainly would not. If we are to discriminate on tobacco on a financial basis and then on a sex basis, where shall we get? The ration of the old age pensioner's wife might become a nice little bit of currency which would involve us in that drop in public morality which we want to avoid. I put it to the Chancellor that the one essential thing that faces us is to curtail imports. I believe that we have to start with that. We have to start the simple job of buying less tobacco, and then, having done that, we have to make a decision as to how we can get that tobacco distributed in the fairest and the best way. I have


recently been in Finland, where I found that the rationing system for tobacco was taken quite for granted and seemed to involve no black market difficulties, because if a person draws tobacco, he draws only half his sugar ration. I believe that in France there is tobacco rationing. I believe that this is something which we could solve on an organised basis which would not, in this hit-and-miss method, miss the rich and hit the poor.

Sir Arthur Salter: There are very great difficulties in the hon. Lady's proposal of a rationing system for tobacco. A rationing system is a very good method for dealing with a shortage if, within reasonable limits, the commodity with which you are dealing is a commodity that is universally consumed, and in which there is not too wide a spread as between the maximum and the minimum consumption. I think, however, that if we applied it to tobacco, of which a very considerable proportion of the population are not consumers, and among consumers of which there is a very wide range between the minimum and the maximum consumption, one could not possibly avoid a very large element of transferable coupons. I will not say there would necessarily be a black market, for the exchanges might be made legally transferable. But in one way or another, there would have to be a great transference. The coupons would have to be given to everybody, and a great number of people would not want them or would not want all of them, and in some form or another, the coupons would in these circumstances obviously be passed on to somebody else.
This would necessarily have one important consequence. If the Chancellor wished to reduce consumption by a quarter, which is what he is looking for from the present tax, he would have to put the ration at not more than half of the present average consumption. For the heavier smokers, who would feel the loss of their tobacco most severely, this would mean reduction to a third or a quarter of what they have been used to. If such smokers have no legal and legitimate method of getting more tobacco by paying more, and sacrificing other things, they would feel it an intolerable hardship and there would be resistance or evasion against which no restrictions or punitive machinery could possibly be effective.
5.0 p.m.
I do not propose to follow in detail the special case of the old age pensioner. All of us, I think, have very considerable sympathy with the case which has been put before us. But we should all agree that whether this general policy is right or not, it is a national policy, and should not turn on the special hardship of one relatively small class, which it may be possible to deal with otherwise. A rather dangerous tendency seems to be developing for the old age pensioners to take the same place in the political terminology of the party opposite as the widows and orphans occupy in so many of the arguments from this side of the House. There is reality in the argument in both cases, but it would be wrong for the whole of a national policy to be deflected by special considerations, whether of the old age pensioners or of widows and orphans.
I am in some respects embarrassed by speaking before the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But, on the whole, I am rather glad that I speak before and not after him, because I want to suggest certain arguments in support of his policy; and I have sometimes found it is easier to do this before, than after, he has given to the House the reasons by which he himself justifies his policy. I propose to emphasise certain arguments which the Chancellor is precluded from using by the general line he has taken in his Budget. I do not think he can make a good case for this tobacco tax, if he puts as great an emphasis as he has put, upon its dollar-saving effect as against its revenue effect, because it is quite clear that the dollar-saving effect will be very small indeed. The Chancellor has himself said that he hopes for 30 million dollars— £7,500,000. Our hard currency deficit last year was £400 million. The Chancellor has said that he expects it will be substantially greater this year, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) gave his estimate of as much as £750 million; but even if you take the lower figure £7,500,000 is a very small proportion indeed.
What is more important, however, is what proportion it is of the remaining hard currency deficit when we have run out of the loans. As things are at present, when we have run out of the loan, we shall be left with a remaining deficit, I would suggest, of at least £300 millions. I think


that is a very moderate estimate. £7,500,000 is only two and a half per cent. of £300 million. It is really a terrible thing if we have to contemplate that, in order to meet a deficit of that kind, when it comes, by sacrifices, the country will have to be asked to suffer as much hardship as it is now being asked to suffer under this tobacco tax multiplied by 40 times. Yet that, on the situation as it now presents itself to us, is a moderate forecast of the future. This tax will perhaps have at least this advantage, that the Chancellor and the Government can use it to make it clear to the country, that this is only one-fortieth of the kind of sacrifice the country will have to suffer by the cutting off of hard currency imports unless the situation as regards output, production and exports improves more rapidly than it has been doing. The tax he has now introduced may in that case have a stimulative effect of much greater value than the actual £7,500,000 of dollars he may now gain. Whether he will get this £7,500,000 by a reduction in consumption is anybody's guess. I expect most of us have been trying to see what we can do. We have had a week to do it, and personally I have got my consumption down to 50 per cent.—for one week. But I know what the craving is, and I do not think I shall be able to continue to reduce on this scale, though I hope I may be able to achieve the Chancellor's 25 per cent. saving. If I do, I think I shall have done pretty well, and I think that will be more or less the experience of the country, or at any rate that part of the country which has been accustomed to smoke rather heavily.
We have had a very dramatic example, in what has happened in Europe, of the extreme difficulty of a very great voluntary reduction. After people have through exceptional circumstances been cut off from their normal consumption of tobacco for a number of years we find, as a consequence, not that they have lost the taste but that cigarettes have acquired a black market purchasing value which makes even the Chancellor's 2d. cigarette seem extraordinarily cheap. We have had a very unfortunate and uncomfortable reminder of one side of the consequences in the special Supplementary Estimate the Chancellor had to introduce in regard to our expenditure in Germany. I am therefore not very hopeful that the Chancellor will get a greater reduction in consump-

tion than the 25 per cent, for which he is hoping.
I am reminded of an answer given by an old Frenchwoman who made her living by selling tobacco. She was asked at the time of the great depression how she was doing in those bad times, and she said, "Well, sir, not so badly; I have the great good fortune to have my business based upon the surest of all foundations, one of man's principal vices." In that context I think the word "man" must be taken to include woman. It is for that reason that I think the revenue effect of this tax will be much more important than its dollar-saving effect. Whereas the dollar saving is both precarious and, in relation to the deficit to be met, minute, the revenue effect is both assured and a very substantial factor in the Budget, for reasons which I will mention in a moment.
The Chancellor, I believe, has then a much surer basis for expecting his £75 million in revenue than for expecting a saving of £7,500,000 in dollars. That is a very important factor. It is a much more important factor than the Chancellor was easily able to argue, because in presenting his Budget as a whole, he presented it to us as a surplus Budget. He explained that at a time when we have not only full employment but more than full employment, we ought to have a surplus, so that we could quite properly run a deficit in later years. I quite agree with his general philosophy, but I do not think the Budget he presented to us was a Budget with a surplus of that kind. I think he would have been entitled to claim real credit for having produced for us an approximately balanced Budget, which was the description given to it by several of his own supporters, including the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan). It is in fact a rather precariously approximately balanced Budget, and in relation to it the revenue he will get from this tax is not a minor but a very important factor. The revenue of £75 million, without which there would have been in any sense which is relevant to policy or consequences a Budget deficit, will just about bring it into balance. It is enough to turn the scale since the deficit in the Budget would only have been small in any case. But it is a very small contribution towards the great dollar deficit of £400 or £600 million to make an estimated saving of only


£7,500,000. And I think it is of the greatest importance that there should be a really balanced Budget. The danger of the present suppressed inflation is very serious indeed.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The right hon. Gentleman is now getting rather far away from the Resolution.

Sir A. Salter: In deference to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I will not develop further the point I was making, that the actuality of suppressed inflation, and the danger of even runaway inflation, is sufficiently great to make it important that the Chancellor should have a Budget that is indubitably balanced. I believe that the revenue effect of this tax is a factor of great importance. It is true that it is an indirect tax, which is open to the familiar objection, which we are all accustomed to hear, of being unlike Income Tax, in that it is not graduated in regard to economic position. But when we are looking at the balance between direct and indirect taxation in this Budget we must remember that the whole of the vast food subsidies, together with subsidies for other necessities, amounting to something like £400 million, are really indirect taxation in reverse. If we are to calculate how much indirect and how much direct taxation there is in this Budget, I think we should deduct the amount of the subsidies from the indirect taxation. If we do that. the proportion of direct to indirect taxation is very high indeed. When Income Tax spreads as far down the scale of incomes on the one hand, and is as severe as it now is at the other end, there can be no question that further increases in direct taxation would be a much greater deterrent to production than the indirect tax of which the Chancellor has now proposed. It is easier for me to emphasise that than for the Chancellor to do so because I attach more importance than he did to the revenue, as distinct from the dollar-saving, effect of the tax.
Because then the Budget gives some dollar savings which could not be obtained by any practical rationing scheme; because it produces a most important revenue which, in my view, just turns the scale between a surplus and a deficit Budget; because it does that in the form of tax which is in no degree a deterrent but which is, to some extent, actually an

incentive; because it can be used as a dramatic and telling illustration of the kind of sacrifices that must inevitably be imposed on the country in about two more years, unless the hard currency deficit is reduced by greater output and exports at a much greater rate than it is being reduced at present—for all these reasons I think there is a much stronger case for this tax than the Chancellor has, so far, made out.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Blyton: I make no apology for rising to argue the case of the old age pensioners, who have already had to meet an increase in the wireless licence and increases in other directions. Now that the price of tobacco has gone up it is impossible for our aged people to meet the extra cost. Only 1,500,000 people will get their postwar credits, whereas 4,500,000 will not be covered by this Budget at all. Men who live in institutions of this country receive only 2s. or 3s. per week pocket money. These men, whose life is spent in the institution corridors that we call workhouses, and who simply wait for mealtimes and bedtimes, are now having taken from them the only solace they have in the eventide of their lives. I would, therefore, ask the Chancellor to give some consideration to the old folk who served this country well in their younger days.
The increased tobacco tax was a shock to many people in my constituency, and although it is not forgotten that Members opposite pressed the Chancellor for months about dollar expenditure on tobacco and films—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), in particular, was indignant about it—people did not realise that the Chancellor would increase the tax by so much, although they knew that there would be some increase. No matter what happens, something ought to be done for the old age pensioner. It is said that nothing can be done, but I have known civil servants who can tell you 10 ways of not doing a thing, and 20 ways how to do it if they are instructed to do it. This can be done through the Ministry of National Insurance. Every pensioner comes under this Department; he receives his pension book and supplementary benefit. So, what is to prevent that Ministry issuing to our aged people 52 coupons, representing 2 ozs. of tobacco a week at pre-Budget prices? The coupon could be


taken to the retailer, who would sell the old age pensioner his tobacco or cigarettes at pre-Budget prices, and who would then be reimbursed by the wholesaler who would, in turn, settle with the Treasury.
It is argued that there might be black market trade in the coupons by nonsmokers. Well, our currency laws have been violated recently by people abroad —and not by working-class people, by the way. There are Income Tax dodgers whom we prosecute if they are caught. But we do not abolish the Income Tax law. A declaration could be made by the aged man or woman that he or she was a smoker, and a dispensation of the kind I have suggested could be made on their behalf. I want to ask the Chancellor to consider between now and the consideration of the Finance Bill the question of giving some concession to these poor people who are feeling very keenly that he is taking away from them in the last days of their life the tobacco which they smoke and which is such a solace to them. The Chancellor has always been generous to our aged people and I am sure that if he makes this concession to them others who are in employment will be able to stand the shock he has given them, satisfied in the knowledge that the old people will be able to enjoy their tobacco at pre-Budget prices.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I am sure the House listened with sympathy and a large measure of agreement to the remarks which have just been made by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton). I agree with him that if this tax is to go through in its present form some such concession to old age pensioners is a moral obligation on the Chancellor. But I think that the fact that that is the case is only a proof that it is a very bad tax indeed. I do not think that it is the proper method to put on indirect taxation like this and then make exceptions in favour of certain categories. That offends against some of the chief canons of taxation and the fact that I agree with the hon.' Gentleman merely strengthens my disagreement with the Chancellor.
This is a most important proposal and one which is more important than most people in the country have realised. It is important intrinsically and also, if I may so put it, symbolically. It is important intrinsically because it is clearly a very bad tax. Nobody knows really

what the object of the Chancellor is in imposing this tax; in any case, whatever the object, it is bound to cause irritation and discontent in application. If its object is to save dollar exchange we have heard from the senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) that it may, if it is successful, save 1½ per cent. of the burden of dollars. But in so doing it will be a danger because it will give people the illusory impression that they are making great and effective efforts to close what the hon. Lady opposite called the flood gates which will, of course, not be the case.
If the Chancellor's intention is to raise revenue, it will be obtained at the expense of the classes of the community which are least able to provide it and will again cause great irritation, and I venture to say that a great deal of the added expenditure on tobacco will be diverted from fields where it would be much better employed—in household expenses, for instance, helping the harassed housewife and the children. If it is an anti-inflationary tax it is the most uneconomic way of doing it when one bears in mind the irritation it will cause. It has symbolic importance because it is clearly only the precursor of many hardships to come and many appeals which this Government or some other Government will have to make to the country in order to close the terrible gap between our imports and exports so far as hard currency countries are concerned.
So far as I can see, this is a sorry example of the Chancellor of the Exchequer coming up to a fence, suddenly jibbing and then turning round and making a half hearten effort to jump it but falling into the ditch. In the manner of little Jack Horner he has put in his thumb and come out with a poisoned finger. He will have to come back to rationing in the end if there is to be an equitable allocation of hardships. The principle upon which this Government rules the country is that it does not matter how miserable we are if we share and share the hardships alike. We on this side say that it does matter very much how miserable we are. We still believe in sharing and sharing alike, but we believe that it is prosperity that should be shared, while the other side believe that it is misery.
I have one suggestion to offer to the Chancellor. I believe that he should withdraw this tax and make an appeal for


economy in smoking. I am perfectly certain from my own experience that there is no need for anybody to smoke at work. In the business in which I am engaged—my own family business of distilling—smoking is not allowed owing to the inflammable nature of the business. [Laughter.] As far as I know, neither clerks, directors nor workers miss it in the slightest degree. There are many other inflammable businesses and nobody misses smoking at all. I see no reason why anybody should work.— [Laughter.] —I mean smoke at work. I am sorry that I have amused the House because I have one further point to make which, although it may appear a facetious one, is really quite serious. I believe that from the point of view of national efficiency it is a great mistake to class snuff with smoking tobacco. Many people are laughed at for taking snuff, but snuff takers are much more numerous than is commonly believed, and there is this to be said about taking snuff. It entirely prevents the common cold, and any snuff taker will confirm this. For this reason I think it is a bad step from the national point of view to penalise snuff takers.
Finally, to the bearing that this tax has on the policy of Imperial Preference. If our hands were completely free we could have switched over from American to Imperial tobacco, and if the Chancellor is determined in his policy to reduce the imports of American tobacco he will have to turn his attention to liberating us from the effects of the trade treaty of 1938 and other agreements so that we may turn over to Imperial supplies. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman will find that he has got into much deeper water than he anticipated over this tax and I hope that neither he nor the House will leave the subject without a great deal more mature consideration being given to it.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I would like to express regret to see the Chancellor wearing bandages, particularly on the minatory forefinger with which he is wont to admonish the House. I have heard it suggested that the cause of the accident is that he "slipped up on tobacco" and that seems to me to be a not unreasonable hypothesis. The hon. Member for Spark-brook (Mr. Shurmer) has referred to the way in which this tax has been received

in the constituencies, and I can confirm from the mouth of my own constituents a similar reception. They are quite prepared to accept as part of any concerted plan a good deal and more in the way of personal hardship than this if it be to maintain as the Chancellor is maintaining —and admirably maintaining—a stable economy and security of employment.
I should like to make one point, and I hope it is not an offensive one. It is that this does not arise primarily from the inefficiency of the Government, but from the complete irresponsibility and inefficiency of the Opposition and the total absence of the possibility of any alternative form of Government, save perhaps a dictatorship under the leadership of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). In the monumental survey of the Budget which I delivered last week, I did refer to one point of importance to which the Chancellor did not reply and to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) has referred. If the primary purpose is to save dollars —and indeed we will back the Chancellor in any efforts that he makes for the saving of dollars—one has to recognise the fact that the saving he computes is a one-way saving only. It merely means that the termination of the spending of the American loan money may be pushed back from some imaginary date in, say, September of next year, from the 20th to the 27th.
5.30 p.m.
If it is part of a concerted scheme to save dollars, of which we are going to hear the full details, we will back it to the full and explain the position fully to our constituents. There is a tendency in extreme Socialist circles for the centre of government to pass to another place, but hon. Members can still speak in their constituencies, and I am prepared to put the facts before my constituents, and I am sure that I will have the support of the senior Member for Oldham (Mr. Fairhurst). We had tobacco rationing in Oldham in the years before the war. We had bread rationing and food rationing as well, and now we have house rationing. Our people are now enjoying a measure of security and a purchasing power which they never had under a Conservative Government, and they will not boggle at this.


I am bound to say that when I find myself in agreement with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough I rather suspect my orthodoxy, but I think there is a great deal of substance in his point. The difference between Imperial rates and hard currency rates is wholly insufficient today. I would like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to examine the amount of Rhodesian tobacco which is being consumed in the United States. It is remarkable that a great volume of Empire tobacco is being sold in the United States, while we are buying United States tobacco for consumption in this country. It may be that that is part of the heritage of the Trade Agreement of 1938 and part of the unwritten agreement behind the American loan. I hope that the Chancellor will look into this matter, because the planning of our Imperial resources is one of the matters which we must have regard to when we face, as we must face very quickly, the prospects of the termination of the loan.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman will look with sympathy, as he always does, to the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) in regard to some possible alternatives to remove the burden from the poorest community. I have a small suggestion to make, which I believe would be practicable, although it would not cover the whole ground, being limited in its aspect. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should consult the tobacco manufacturers with a view to the production of a special brand of tobacco, specially labelled and packed, which does not bear the burden of tax. This tobacco could be circulated in public assistance institutions and hospitals for consumption by resident inmates and patients only. It would not help the old age pensioners outside, but the person who goes into a public assistance institution frequently lacks friends and goes there because he is alone. I think it is a proposal which would cost very little. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will forgive me for giving him a word of fatherly advice on how to do this. He should first consult his principal adviser, who will, no doubt, tell him that it cannot be done, and then he should call his second adviser and tell him to put it into effect, which he could do in a few minutes.

Mr. D. Marshall: The senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) put forward a very reasoned argument, but it was based upon the collection of revenue and not on stopping the payment of dollars. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will be the first to agree that his whole argument has been that it was absolutely vital to save dollars, which was the reason for imposing this very heavy burden. I am confident that the effect of this proposal will be that the burden will fall on those whose incomes are at the lower levels. Why, if the Chancellor is primarily concerned with the question of saving dollars, does he not restrict the amount of imports of tobacco by 25 per cent., or even further if he wishes? If he did that, I would back him to the full, but what I cannot agree to is the imposition of a duty of this size, which imposes such a heavy burden on old age pensioners. I need not develop this aspect, because it has already been dealt with by other hon. Members who have pointed out the disastrous effect it will have on these people.
The old age pensioner has very little at the present moment. It is a pretty hard life, but I will not go into the reasons why it is a pretty hard life at the moment. Smoking is one of the last pleasures left to him, and now he is suddenly to have it taken away. It is not very encouraging for these people, who are in the winter of their days, to hear the President of the Board of Trade making his gloomy wireless statements. These people have a limited number of years, and there is no encouragement for them that hear that these hard days cannot be overcome in the near future. And now there is this crippling cost of tobacco, which is a very poor effort on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Reference has already been made to the question of the small shopkeepers, and I do not think we should be forgetful of them. I am told that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is an economist. He will realise that if a man is making a certain profit on 2s. 4d., and if he is to make the same profit on 3s. 4d., his capital is being raised by that amount. This is just not sensible business, and he will in any case do a very different kind of business in the way of turnover. The question of a rise in capital should be taken into consideration.
There is one point which I have not heard mentioned, and that is in connection


with the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget Debate. He stated:
In present circumstances I regret that this special arrangement can no longer be justified."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1947; Vol. 436, c. 87.]
That was in referenc to the Armed Forces. This is a matter of considerable importance. There have been occasions lately in this House, and there most certainly will be in the near future again, when we have discussed the question of finding men for the Armed Forces. It is not very encouraging in this respect if the Forces are not allowed to have this concession. The cost cannot be considerable, and I would like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give us some idea how much is involved in granting this concession. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that it is hypothetical how many dollars he will save by this proposal. I do not believe that he will save any considerable amount of dollars. I am willing to support him, as I have said, to the full in limiting the supplies of tobacco from the United States, but I am forced to vote against him on this Measure, which imposes the greatest misery and burden on the lower income groups in the country.

Mr. Christopher Shawcross: Before going any further I should like to correct misleading reports made about the condition of the Chancellor's right hand and arm, because I am reliably informed that they are suffering from the effects of his having delivered a knock-out blow, about a week ago, to Woodbine. The suggestion made by the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), and explained in greater detail by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson), is an idea which has not been investigated at all, so far as I know, and could well result in a reduction of the consumption of tobacco by at least 50 per cent. It is a plan which might be adopted in substitution for the presently proposed tax, or in addition to it or to any other plan, such as rationing, for reducing the consumption of tobacco. It has four principal advantages. The first is the one I have mentioned. The next is its apparent simplicity. I would have hesitated myself had any other hon. Members opposite suggested it also—because it seemed so obvious, that 'one would have thought that there must

be a serious catch in it. But it has the advantage of simplicity. Third, it requires no legislation, but simply an agreement on both sides of industry and in certain Government Departments.
It involves the reversion to our former smoking habits which have been abandoned during the last 40 years. The habit has grown up, particularly during the last war, of smoking at all sorts of times and places where, 20 or 30 years ago, it was unheard of. One example, which struck me at the time, is that only a few weeks ago a public inquiry was held on behalf of the Minister of Civil Aviation into a tragic air disaster, in which a number of lives was lost, and I am told that during the public proceedings everyone, including the chairman conducting the inquiry and his secretaries, smoked furiously all the time. If this tendency proceeds much further, it will not be long before smoking becomes habitual even in this Chamber or in the Committees of this House. In many factories smoking is not allowed for safety reasons. Underground in mines it is not allowed, and the people working in them have been deprived and are now being deprived of tobacco because others more fortunate, and under less strict control, have been indulging in tobacco while they worked. In one large factory in my constituency, the manager told me that they had to allow smoking, although they did not like it during work, because otherwise they lost time by people making excuses and surreptitiously leaving their benches to smoke. I am sure that would not operate now in the circumstances which exist.
If this scheme were adopted, I suggest that an example should be set by Government Departments prohibiting all smoking during normal working hours, as it was until quite recent times, and that the same should apply in all offices in the City and everywhere where that prohibition could be supervised. In the case of farm workers and others who could not be supervised it could, I suggest, be quite safely left to them, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, to honour that obligation if it were put to them in a proper way. This scheme has the inestimable advantage—and I think that every heavy smoker will agree with me—that speaking personally one does not find it very hard to be deprived of tobacco under conditions, or at times, when it is normal not to smoke. We, sitting in this Chamber, for


example, do not want to smoke. We leave the Chamber to indulge in tobacco outside, but while we are working here or upstairs it is no hardship at all not to smoke, nor would it be in any factory or office where that was the habitual rule.
5.45 p.m.
I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider whether this cannot be done —and he should see that Government offices and Departments set the example —in public vehicles, in public corporations and all those places where the Government have any kind of influence or control and where such a rule could be promulgated and enforced. I believe that it would result in at least 50 percent. reduction, but if it was thought necessary still further to cut down, we could adopt a practice which has been prevalent in other countries for many years, and prohibit smoking in cinemas, theatres and railway trains. Instead of having one non-smoking compartment out of six or ten, we should do, as in America, and have no smoking except in one in ten. That would result in a very large reduction in a very short time without any difficulty at all.

Mr. W. J. Brown: With regard to the prohibition of smoking in Government Departments, does the hon. Gentleman propose to allow civil servants the same facilities for leaving the room to have a smoke as he himself and the rest of us exercise in this Chamber?

Mr. Shawcross: My knowledge and experience of the Civil Service is not so extensive as that of the hon. Gentleman, but I imagine that they are equally abstemious as he is with regard to imbibing refreshment, and in indulging in other activities which might make it necessary to leave their work for the purpose which he mentions. I was about to conclude by asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would consider this suggestion very seriously, because he said in his Budget speech that it must be regarded as a patriotic duty to reduce smoking. Does that mean—because he seemed to rather whittle that away when he replied—that it is our duty to give it up altogether if we can. Whatever it means, I suggest that the Government should set an example by introducing the rule which I and other hon. Members have suggested in all places under their control.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I rather expected that hon. Gentlemen opposite would come back from the weekend in their constituencies in the frame of mind they have. They are torn between the opinions expressed to them over the weekend by their constituents and their having to vote for the Government tonight. I think that the hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer) was a little hard when he said that people would actually bless the Chancellor of the Exchequer for teaching them not to smoke. I think that, at the same time, the hon. Gentlemen was qualifying not so much to represent his constituency at the next Election, as to become the first chairman of the tobacco board. The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton), supported by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale), seemed to favour a scheme whereby tobacco should be distributed through the Ministry of National Insurance. I hope that the Chancellor will reject any suggestion of that kind. It would have a most unfortunate effect on the whole of the Income Tax law, and on the actual trading community. I am sure that he will not think of it for a single moment.
The matter of saving dollars has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members. The Chancellor of the Exchequer expects to save £7,500,000 in one year, and the senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) rightly put that against the amount of the expected deficit on current trading, which he put at £300 million. I should have thought it would be something in excess of that, considering that we borrowed from America and from Canada £1,000 million and that we expect to run through it in two years. The rate of expenditure of these dollars coupled with the expected deficit on current trading would, I think, produce an adverse dollar situation of £500 million, and if we set an expenditure of £7,500,000 against that it is nothing more than a drop in the ocean.
It is also a drop in the ocean from the point of view of the tax. The Chancellor estimates to gain approximately £70 million in a full year from this tobacco tax and that is set against a total revenue of £3,450,000,000. It is surely hardly worth the great inconvenience and hardship involved in terms of a tax revenue. I am one of those who thing that there is


nothing at all in the idea of a Budget balanced at the high level as an instrument of deflation. I hope to develop that theme on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, because it would be out of Order here. But the Chancellor has taken credit for balancing his Budget and he has produced or pretends to produce £70 million as an aid to himself in doing that. In my opinion it is just in keeping with the other grave hardships that will arise when we run through the American Loan.
There are two tests by which we ought to judge all these Resolutions as they come before the House—whether they are disinflationary and whether they act as incentives. It seems to me that this tax is inflationary. It will raise the price of an article which is getting in shorter and shorter supply. When larger sums of money are associated with shorter supplies of goods, that is inflation. Secondly, it has not any effect upon incentives, at either end of the scale, whether the upper incomes or the lower incomes. The upper income people will obviously go on smoking as much as they did before. The right incentive to apply to them is to reduce the price of tobacco and release more of their money for other purposes. In the case of the lower income groups the tendency of this tax will be to cut down smoking and release more money to spend in other ways. The kind of incentive which should be given to people in the lower incomes is to withdraw part of their money. Absenteeism in the mining community is already due to excess of purchasing power. Therefore, this tax will not operate as an incentive through-out the lower income groups. It is obviously a tax designed to set the stage for next year's Election. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that this was not a pre-Election Budget, but he has set the stage to make swinging reductions in taxation and to produce benefit after benefit in next year's Budget in order to secure the votes of supporters of Socialism.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): I think it might be for the convenience of the House if I intervened at this stage. No doubt the Debate will continue after I have spoken, but since I have not given my views on this Resolution and since a number of interesting speeches

have been made, I should like to have a chance of making some comments on what has been said. The Opposition are going to oppose this Resolution. I am not surprised. This is an unpopular proposal which I have made and it is not surprising that the Opposition will vote against a proposal which they think will be some-what unpopular in the country. As a general rule Oppositions vote against unpopular proposals; we have done it in our time. Therefore, I am not at all surprised that they are going to vote against it. At the same time, I am convinced that this Resolution should be accepted because I believe it is the first stage—and I want to repeat this because many hon. Members have worked out sums showing the percentages of the various amounts or the deficits that this saving will represent— in bringing our dollar expenditure, which has become too large, more in relation to our resources, and also the first step in bringing about a more balanced situation as between exports and imports.
I am appealing to the public, and I believe we shall get support from many quarters, for a total reduction in the aggregate of 25 per cent. in the consumption of tobacco, and that will mean, as has been said several times, and which is really repeating my own estimate, a minimum saving of 30 million dollars in the next year. This is a minimum because we can acid a little bit to that for a reduction in the stocks needed to be carried by the manufacturers if the rate of smoking goes down. So 'the saving will be 30 million dollars plus something in respect of the running down of stocks. It might well be with regard to this economy and with regard to others that will follow —we must see how things go—that we may ask for some 'further restrictions. At this stage it seems to me that this is a reasonable first step—the first shot in the campaign to bring dollar expenditure down and to bring the export and import gap to a narrower point so that we can look more hopefully to the future.
Before I sit down I will deal with the suggestions made by a number of my hon. Friends, and also from the other side of the House, about old age pensioners and other groups. I should like to leave over what I have to say until a later part of my remarks, but I should like to begin by drawing attention to the fact that it is only too easy to exaggerate here as in


every other case, the effect of this tax upon the average family budget. I promised to give some figures and I have some now. I think that there will be no dispute that this is straightforward, non-controversial arithmetic. If we take a person with a daily pre-Budget consumption of 20 cigarettes at 2s. 4d. he or she used to spend in a week 16s. 4d. The post-Budget price of those 20 cigarettes will go up to 3s. 4d. If the person in question follows the invitation to reduce smoking by one-quarter, or 25 per cent., he or she will be spending 175. 6d. as against 16s. 4d. That is an increase in the weekly budget of 1s. 2d., no more and no less.
On the other hand, if he wishes to save a little money and if he reduces his consumption by one-third, he will do better. One right hon. Gentleman has told us that he has already reduced his consumption not merely by one-third but by one-half. [An HON. MEMBER: "It will not last long."] That remains to be seen. Anyhow, suppose there be someone who, smoking 20 cigarettes a day before the Budget at 2s. 4d., proposes to cut his consumption by one-third. He will then, at the higher prices, only be spending 15s. 7d. a week, against 16s. 4d. I commend this arithmetic in particular to Scotsmen.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: How does one cut 20 cigarettes by one third?

Mr. Dalton: I am assuming that at least three packets would be bought. Of course, this is a figure taken over a period of time. It would mean that he would buy two packets whereas before he had bought three each containing 20 cigarettes. Perhaps that would be the more precise way to put it. Take the case of the pipe smoker, and not a cigarette smoker, and suppose that he used to smoke daily, pre-Budget, half an ounce of flake at 2s. 8d. an ounce, his weekly expenditure would be 9s. 4d. The post-Budget price would be 3s. 9½d. an ounce in place of the 2s. 8d. an ounce, and if he reduced his consumption, as I have invited him to. do, by one-quarter, he would be spending 9s. rid. a week as against 9s. 4d. That is an increase of 7d. It is no more nor less than 7d., which is not a sum which will make all the

difference, in such a case, between a high and low standard of living.
Supposing that this person, being a Scotsman, tried to save money by reducing his consumption by one-third instead of one-quarter, he would then spend upon his smokes in an average week 8s. 10d. instead of the previous 9s. 4d., so he would save 6d. a week. I mention these figures in order to illustrate how easy it is to exaggerate in this matter and to suggest that the effect of these increases upon any section of reasonably heavy smokers will be deeply calamitous. I leave over, as I have said, the case of old age pensioners and others, but I put this broadly in regard to smokers in general. This matter is very capable of exaggeration, but I am sure that all hon. Members will wish, as we all do, to restrain any such inclination.
It is said that this is only going to result in some percentage saving of dollars—the percentage varies according to the figures. It is said that it is a small percentage of the total dollar deficit. That is quite true, but I repeat that it is the first step. I should be very greatly blamed, and rightly, and the Government would be blamed, if later on we were proposing other restrictions designed to reduce dollar expenditure and we had not taken the first step with regard to tobacco. It is undoubtedly a less essential commodity. In regard to films, it would not be in Order to discuss that matter in detail. Films and tobacco do, in a sense, hang together in so far as they are inessential by comparison with foodstuffs. I have indicated to the House why I have chosen tobacco here and not films. As I have already said—and it would be wrong and out of Order to do more than just repeat it here—whereas excessive expenditure on tobacco is properly tackled, at any rate in part, by taxation, expenditure on films is not so tackled but is appropriately handled by other methods which it would be out of Order for me to develop.
Here, I would like to reply to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), who thought that I had taken in vain the name of the Leader of the Opposition in my broadcast. It is quite true that the Leader of the Opposition, whom I named in my broadcast,


and many others, have suggested to me for some time that we ought to have a cut at this smoking. I hold in my hand a copy of HANSARD for 4th February in which there is reported a rather long exchange between the Leader of the Opposition and myself on the subject of tobacco. Other hon. Members also took part. The Leader of the Opposition asked me—and this is my justification for what I said in my broadcast—
Is there any reason to suppose that the British nation would not be willing to submit to any curtailment of non-essentials in regard to imports of films and tobacco out of the American loan in order either that that loan should be expended on essentials or that it should last longer?
In reply, I said:
It would, indeed, be very helpful if such a state of opinion were to grow up.…
of this kind adverse to spending so many dollars on tobacco, and on films also, though that is not now in question. I continued:
… if such a state of opinion were to grow up; and if we could have appeals made from any quarter, I would be quite prepared to do my part, if it could be made a national appeal that people should economise, particularly on tobacco."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1947; Vol. 432, c. 1576.]
That is what I am proposing to do and I shall take action from time to time to make these appeals. I hope, in the light of what was then said, that the Opposition can join in. They can record their votes tonight and make the most of that situation but, having done that, I hope that they will join in appealing to the public. We are spending much more money on tobacco than is reasonable in the situation that exists. We all agree on that. I hope that after the vote has been taken there will be a good many appeals made from all round the political circle, if I may so express it.

Mr. Stanley Prescott: Is it not a fact that nothing said by the Leader of the Opposition suggested that he was in favour of a prohibitive tax?

Mr. Dalton: That is not what I was claiming. I think that the hon. Member was not in the House at the time when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was speaking. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman challenged whether the Leader of the Opposition had ever suggested, as I said that he did, that we were smoking

too much of the dollar tobacco. I have given the evidence of his having said it. That is the sole point on which I was anxious to make a reply. It is nothing to do with the tax itself; it is about whether we are spending too much. I said that many people have told me that we are spending too much, and that is why the tax is going up. The argument is perfectly logical.
There was one other point raised by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman about preference, with which, perhaps, I might deal at this stage. It is the case, as he surmised, that the 1938 Anglo-American agreement reduced the preference previously prevailing on Empire tobacco to the absolute margin which existed before I introduced this Budget and which I am stabilising and maintaining in the Budget. It is obvious that if two figures both move up, the difference between them being maintained, then, of course, the proportion of the gap between the smaller and the larger is diminished. In that sense, the preference has diminished. In the other sense, the absolute margin is retained unchanged. It is true that it is the 1938 agreement which has influenced the preference. It is the general position, which was referred to in the House the other day by my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who is now concerned with directing the discussions in Geneva, which, of course, precludes us from reconsidering that particular aspect of the matter. In any case, the Americans could object even apart from that. Therefore, I say that the present preference on Empire tobacco derives from the 1938 agreement and that over and above that—not as a necessary element in the case—there is the undertaking made in this House as a preliminary to our going into these trade talks.
I would like to add another word about Empire tobacco. We are buying all the Empire tobacco that we can get. We have been buying for some time and there is no intention to depart from that. It would be quite a wrong idea to assume that there is a quantity of Empire tobacco lying about in any part of the world which we are not prepared to purchase. There was a statement to this effect made by my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade himself in the course of the speech which he made during the Economic Survey Debate. He said that we shall, of course, continue the


policy of using all the Empire tobacco we can get, whether it is from Southern Rhodesia, which is the principal source, or from Nyasaland or India or elsewhere. In some parts of the Empire, in India for instance, there is a tendency now for much more of the production to be consumed within the country. The export surplus has diminished. But I can assure the House that we shall not be backward in purchasing whatever available supplies there may be of Empire tobacco. Indeed, the difficulty has sometimes been to persuade some of the manufacturers to use as much Empire tobacco as we could get and to blend it with other kinds. However, we are prepared to do our best to get agreement.
If it is admitted—I think everybody does admit it—that we must reduce the consumption of dollar tobacco, then the choice rests between the method such as I have suggested and various methods of regulating imports and rationing. As I told the House when this matter was being discussed before, we should have been most blameworthy if before I made this proposal on behalf of the Government we had not carefully examined the technical and administrative aspects of the alternative arrangements. We did so, and we reached the conclusion that none of these alternatives would really do. I will briefly tell the House why.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: To make it quite clear, did the Chancellor in considering these matters have the opportunity—I imagine he did not—of considering them with the manufacturers?

Mr. Dalton: There are limits to what one can discuss before a Budget. As a matter of fact, there is a continuing relationship, primarily through the Board of Trade rather than the Treasury, though we are in close contact with the President of the Board of Trade on all these matters. The Tobacco Controller works through the President of the Board of Trade, ministerially speaking, and he is in very constant touch and a constant link between the trade and the Government. I think we know their views pretty well, although we obviously could not put to them certain alternatives, one of which would have been a tax. What I am going to say should, in fact, carry a good deal of conviction, and I think it will. It is not politics at all, but a practical administra-

tive question, and I cannot imagine that the manufacturers would be in disagreement with the principal points I am now going to make.
First of all, it has been suggested that we might simply cut down on the total import licences; that is, to say, "All right. We will reduce the import licence issues to 75 per cent., or what you will." However, it is perfectly clear that that would lead to queues in the shops. There would be no change in taxation, but it would simply cut down the licences. There would be no change in prices. We should have queues and shop crawling which would all be most troublesome. People would go about from place to place seeking to pick up a packet of cigarettes or an ounce of pipe tobacco. It would be most time wasting and it would have bad effects on production. It would have ill effects on a very large body of working people who would go around trying to pick up an odd packet of cigarettes, because this plan, which I am now discussing, is based upon the assumption that we are deliberately reducing our available supplies substantially below the demands of the public. That is what is meant if there is no rationing.

Mr. Thurtle: There would even be queues in the smoking room.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Dalton: As my hon. Friend says, there would even be queues in the smoking room. In the first place, it would he very irritating to the general body of working people, and in the second place, it would quite certainly give rise to a great deal of absence from work. When I say that, I speak of what I remember during the war in the early days when I was appointed President of the Board of Trade. One of the first problems we had to consider was how to get our tobacco supplies, because at that time there had developed just the situation which it is now suggested by some people might he introduced, namely a shortage of tobacco supplies below the requirements of the population. There were queues hanging about outside all sorts of tobacconist shops, and it was both irritating psychologically and bad for production. I cannot think that that could really be put forward as a practical proposition. It would have all the disadvantages of my proposals, and a lot more as well.
Now let us pass to considerations of rationing. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I went into this, and the Minister of Food was also involved in regard to the suggestions for swapping tobacco against sweets, We formed the view quite definitely that it was not a practicable plan either to ration tobacco alone as a separate commodity, or to put it on points in competition with sweets and other articles containing sugar. With regard to the general rationing of tobacco, the facts are pretty well known. About one-third of the adult population, or one half of the total population, do not smoke at all, and among smokers there is a very wide variation in consumption, much wider than in the consumption of food or possibly the consumption of drink, though that varies widely too.
If we had an equal distribution based upon rationing we would have very great dissatisfaction, assuming there was no black market. We should run into administrative difficulties also, it would be unsatisfactory to people and there would be complaints because the ration would he much too much for those who did not smoke at all or much too little for the heavy smokers. The thing would not work out in the relatively equitable way that the rationing of bread or other foodstuffs does, and undoubtedly an uncontrollable black market would develop. That is not making any accusation against the general honesty, but people's attitude towards tobacco is different from their attitude towards many other things, and it is certainly a black market potential, if I may use that term. It would be a very much livelier black market than there is in relation to other commodities because of the attraction of and the satisfaction derived from tobacco. We should certainly get a very large and completely uncontrollable black market if we tried to ration tobacco separately.

Mr. Benn Levy: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the French system?

Mr. Dalton: Is it a good thing to imitate the French in that respect? There are some respects in which the French are worthy of great imitation, but I do not think we should imitate the French primarily in matters relating to public administration. That is not the French

strong suit. They have other strong suits.

Mr. Levy: There is not a large black market in cigarettes—[HON. MEMBERS: Oh."]

Mr. Dalton: With very great respect, I will not venture to argue with my hon. Friend as to just how big the black market is in this, that or the other commodity in France. I am very anxious not to be led into saying anything which would be other than friendly to France. We may imitate the French in all sorts of other ways, but not I think in regard to matters touching the efficiency of public administration. There I must, as a Francophile, leave it. Further, there are 385,000 distribution points of tobacco, and that in itself would make any rationing scheme extremely difficult to introduce. Tobacco, much more than almost anything else, is sold in relatively small quantities by a very large number of retailed traders.

Mr. Stanley: Much more than sweets?

Mr. Dalton: I will not give an opinion on that. I am speaking now on the proposal to ration tobacco as a separate commodity. On that I say that 385,000 distribution points is a large number, and a large administrative machine would be necessary to operate a rationing scheme. I am prepared to justify to the hilt the staffs we have taken on, but I do not want to keep adding to them and taking people away from other work. I am prepared to argue that those officials who are administering the existing rationing scheme are doing valuable work in the public interest, but I do not think one ought, with equanimity, to consider extending rationing to commodities which are not of first necessity in our lives. Therefore, it was the view of the Government, reached after careful thought, that we should reject the proposal to ration tobacco as a separate commodity for the reasons I have given.
There is the alternative suggestion of rationing it along with other commodities on a points scheme. The arguments against this are somewhat different but, in my view, they are heavily conclusive against it. This, again, was much in our minds in the days of the Coalition, when I was at the Board of Trade and when we had discussions about this problem. The principal objection is the same now as then. it is that on the present points scheme you are rationing foods which


have a nutritional value, and if you put up tobacco as an alternative, you will be diverting the use of coupons from things having a nutritional value—and sweets have a definite nutritional value insofar as they contain sugar—to tobacco which has not a nutritional value. Therefore, the deliberate view of the Ministry of Food, and I am sure they are right—and this was the view of the Ministry of Food when Lord Woolton was Minister, and it is the view of the Ministry of Food now that my right hon. Friend is Minister—is that it would be anti-nutritional to put tobacco into the points system and to make it an alternative to foods which build up the strength and energy of the human body. For that reason, in addition to administrative difficulties, we have rejected the proposal to ration tobacco, not separately, but along with other foods.
This brings us back to the proposal which I made in my last Budget speech and which I am submitting to the House, the proposal that we should put on an admittedly steep tax, with a steeper rise than has ever been made before at any one moment. Over the years, of course, the tax on tobacco has risen by more in its earlier stages than the rise I am proposing now. However, that was a rise in a series of increments, and this is one larger than ever before plus an appeal, which, I repeat, I hope will be made by all men and women of responsibility in public life in all parties to the public to achieve at least a 25 per cent. reduction. This is the proposal which I am submitting on behalf of the Government.
I have had, of course, a considerable correspondence on this subject. - I brought down a selection of some of the more abusive letters, but I have mislaid them. Perhaps it does not much matter, and I will pick them up again a little later on. On the other hand, let me hasten to add, only quite a small fraction have been really abusive; quite a number of them are from people who have chosen to write to me out of the blue and have fully recognised the national need for the policy which I am submitting. And quite a number of them have been very much in with the speeches made in this House this afternoon by a number of hon. Members who say that they have been in their constituencies at the weekend and have gathered the general impression that, although there was a feeling about certain particular sections of the com-

munity being unduly hardly hit by this, yet on the whole there was acceptance of this as a national necessity.
I repeat, I have had a considerable correspondence. In addition, a high proportion of hon. Members who have spoken today, some from the other side of the House, including the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon)—who used some very kind words about me, which is so agreeable when it comes from that quarter of the House—and, I think, also the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) touched, in passing, on the question of the old age pensioner. It can never be said by any person who is both truthful and informed that this Government has not done a lot for old people, deliberately and intentionally. After all, I do not think the increase of the old age pension was controversial in broad principle, though I venture to think that we put the old age pension up to a higher figure than a Tory Government would have done if they had won the last Election. At any rate, we put it at the figure which the House knows, and that made a very great change indeed in the conditions of many hundreds of thousands of old people. In addition to that, I have myself, with the full approval of both sides of the House, first last year and again this year, given the old people first place with regard to the repayment of the postwar credits, though the proportion of those people who draw postwar credits is not very high because, in order to draw a postwar credit, you must have been liable to Income Tax before, and many of them were not, having only their pensions on which to live. But surely that was a marked and decided preference for the old people when it came to the dispensing of this particular benefit?
Further than that, the food subsidies— which some people think should be reduced to negligible proportions—which are still nearly £400 million a year, in large measure assist the old people proportionate to their resources. I have not the figure, but if food subsidies were worked out, as they could be, in proportion to the incomes of the people on average consumption at different income levels, it would be found that the lower the income, the bigger was the contribution made by the food subsidy to the budget of the people concerned. Therefore, we have not been at all neglectful


of the old people, or of the lower income groups.
The House will not expect me to give a snap answer this afternoon to what has just been said. I have given the reasons why rationing will not work, and my mind is closed on that. I shall resist the proposals to substitute rationing schemes for the proposal that I have put up. On the other hand, with regard to the Old Age Pensioners, my mind is not closed at all but, to be perfectly frank about it, it is open to a certain amount of administrative difficulty. No doubt in the last resort every difficulty can be overcome, but there are certain obvious difficulties which will have to be looked at, and I cannot commit my colleagues at this stage. However, I think this is the one positive point worthy of further careful examination, which has emerged from the criticism made in different parts of the House and put up by hon. Members opposite as well as those on this side.
If I may mention one difficulty, it is that of the old ladies of 65 or 70, who have never smoked in their lives. That has to be looked at. Somebody has suggested that we might require some kind of declaration to be made by the old person that they had been in the habit of smoking and that, if they did not make a declaration, they should not receive a ration.

Mrs. Manning: I hope the right hon. Gentleman does not think that help to the older women is in the minds of the vast majority of hon. Members. That would be feminism gone mad. I think he will agree that old ladies of that generation—when the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) reaches pensionable age, it will be a different matter. I wish to remind the Chancellor that old ladies of that generation would think it terrible to smoke a cigarette. To burden this matter, which many of us have at heart, with something which is quite unnecessary is wrong. I hope the Chancellor will look at this matter again.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Dalton: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) for her intervention. All I was seeking to do was to indicate the difficulties of the problem. If we have some special arrangement for old age pensioners, these old ladies of whom we are

talking will be included, and either we have to give them the same as the men, or something different. It is an administrative difficulty. The Government are not wishing to rush to a fixed conclusion on this matter. I wish to indicate to the House that here is an administrative problem, which we have to look at. Again, in regard to the thing being abused, it may be arguable as my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) pointed out, in another connection, that a black market might develop which could, perhaps, be ignored. But, one does not wish deliberately to create facilities for Black Market operations, and that point would have to be looked at. There was also the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale), who thought there might be some special kind of tobacco made which could be distributed through institutions.

Mr. Hale: I did say specially labelled and specially packed, so that it could be identified but not a special or a poorer kind of tobacco.

Mr. Dalton: rose—

Mrs. Jean Mann: On a point of Order. I want to ask why there is sex discrimination in this House, and why the Chancellor refused to give way to me, but gave way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of Order, and I cannot give a Ruling.

Mr. Dalton: I did not intend any disrespect to my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann). The suggestion is again an administrative problem. Now we are through the Budget Stage, it is perfectly possible for these matters to be discussed with the manufacturers. I will undertake to have a further look at that matter. I never like to seem to be engaging in more commitments than I can carry out. But I wish to see whether there is some way of meeting the case for the old people. I undertake to apply my mind to them and to get my officials on that matter and, if necessary, to have discussion with the trade between now and the introduction of the Finance Bill, we will see what we can do. I would like to do something in that direction. It may turn out in the end that the difficulties are insuperable. On the other hand, we have often found that difficulties are not so insuperable as some had supposed. But there are diffi-


culties, and I would not like to hide them.

Sir Ian Fraser: In view of the fact that the Chancellor has said that he will look into the matter, and will consult the trade and get his officials working on the scheme to make some concession to the old people, will he also have in mind a concession to disabled Servicemen?

Mr. Dalton: That is another administrative problem. The administrative problem is where to draw the line. This is so familiar; once we say we will do something for somebody, we are asked, "Why not for someone else?" and gradually the circle is widened. I am not wishing at this stage to make any further commitment than to say that I will look into the question in the light of the speeches which have been made, including the suggestion of the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), to see where, in fact, we can draw a practical line. I hope the House will feel that I have shown some signs of being influenced by views expressed on both sides as I always try to do so, and I hope the House will do the justice in this. Of course I cannot tear up the whole Budget, but I am always prepared to listen. It seems one of the chief functions in these House of Commons Debates to listen to arguments put forward from different sections of the House as to how the main structure of the Budget, to which the Government are irrevocably committed, can be modified in detail.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I rather gather that the Chancellor is coming to the end of his speech and, if so, I want him to come clown with a heavy foot and hard on the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. C. Shawcross) that one way of making the Budget balance would be to stop civil servants smoking in Government offices. If anything like that is done it should be done generally and not in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner.

Mr. Shawcross: Before the Chancellor answers that point, may I point out that that was not my suggestion? What I said was that the Chancellor referred to appeals to the country, and that vague appeals of that kind are no good at all, but examples should be set, and a request made to all industry and commerce to carry out the scheme; it was proposed not from this side of the House at first, but from the other side.

Mr. Dalton: We can have a look at that also, but the question is how to make an appeal. I would not discriminate against civil servants, of course; I would not ask them to do something which other members of the community were not doing. I feel that that is all I can say at this stage. The Opposition are going to vote against this, and I ask the Government majority to vote in favour. I give an undertaking on the lines I have indicated, particularly in regard to old age pensioners, and I will do my best between now and the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, to see whether it is practicable to work out a scheme which will give effect to requests and suggestions which have been made from many parts of the House, from this side and from that.

Mr. Piratin: I think the House will be pleased to have heard the Chancellor say that he is going to consider the special circumstances of old age pensioners. Although I welcome that, I want the House to be clear that I oppose this Resolution completely, and will do so later when a Division is taken. I do so not on the grounds on which Conservatives are opposing it, for I agree with the Chancellor in his explanation of their attitude. When the Chancellor was speaking on the Budget a week ago, I characterised this Resolution as shameful, and I now have an opportunity of explaining in greater detail what I meant by that expression.
This is an unjust imposition. I know there are discussions on these Benches between hon. Members, many of whom are my friends, regarding the merits and demerits of indirect taxation and direct taxation. There is a growing conception among Labour Members of Parliament that direct taxation bears more heavily than indirect taxation, and if a saving has to be made, there should be reductions in direct taxation. It is for that reason, in my opinion, that many Labour Members of Parliament are under an illusion about the purpose and result of this tax. The Chancellor said last Tuesday, and it has been repeated today by a number of Members, that the main purpose of this tax is to save dollars, and that the question of revenue is only indirectly of importance. In fact, the amount of revenue which the Chancellor contemplates raising is 10 times the amount of dollars which he expects to


save. That is a queer way of saying that he is primarily concerned with saving dollars, and only secondarily with the revenue, for if he is intent upon saving dollars, he knows many ways in which they can be saved. If he is not quite sure about it, I can help him.
In the first place, the House is aware of the large dollar expenditure which is involved in maintaining our Armed Forces abroad. In many of those cases, as quite a large number of hon. Members of this House will agree, the maintenance of those Armed Forces in those countries is not to our interest, let alone the interests of the people of those lands. Yet we are spending dollars for that purpose. The Chancellor is far better aware than I am of the precise amount of dollars which we are spending in that way. Secondly, if we are to save dollars on our imports, I submit that there is quite a substantial list of semi-luxuries and luxuries which we are importing, which we need not import at all—[An HON. MEMBER: "Name them."] Very well. I will give an example. Before Christmas my wife was looking for presents. She went into a shop, in the window of which she had seen a plastic brush and comb set, which she thought she would buy as a present. She was told that the price was £12. When she recovered from her amazement, she was told, "This comes from the United States, and Customs duty has to be paid, in addition to Purchase Tax, etc." She said to the salesman, "Why do we have to get this kind of thing from the United States?" He replied, "That is not my affair, Madame." He was quite right; that is our affair. That is the kind of luxury I have in mind. It is not for me to go into details. As the House knows, on a recent occasion, the President of the Board of Trade was asked to supply figures. All he gave was one comprehensive figure of manufactured goods imported; we have never had that total broken down. It needs to be broken down, and we shall find that it contains luxury goods.
Let us consider the question of films. We spend £17 million a year in dollars on importing films. I think that every intelligent Member of this House—every Member, if I may say so—knows that most of the films we import from America are not worth showing.[HON. MEMBERS:

"No."] I repeat, most of them are not worth showing. The way to have saved precisely this amount of £7,500,000 worth of dollars would have been to decrease the imports of films by about half. Let me put it in this way. When I was a youngster, a film was exhibited for a whole week, whereas now, in most of the cinemas outside central London, films are shown for three days, and in the latter part of the week another film is shown. There is no reason why we cannot revert to the former system. It would mean that a person who goes to the cinema once a week, would be able to continue to do so. Those who like to go twice a week, would either have to see the same film twice or go to a different cinema, say an Odeon cinema as against an A.B.C. one, and so forth, and their wants would be met in that way.
6.45 p.m.
The Chancellor has shown a lack of imagination about how to save dollars, for which reason I conclude that his main intention was not that of saving dollars. If it is really his intention, and if the House agrees to pass this Resolution, and subsequently the Finance Bill, why not let him in that case, make a gesture? If we are to save £7,500,000 worth of dollars, but at the same time raise £75 million in Excise, let the Chancellor take an equivalent amount of £75 million-off beer, or off the Purchase Tax, or let him increase the amount of the food subsidies to that extent. So far as the Budget is concerned, such an action would have no bearing on the total, but it would be an indication of his good will and sincerity.
At this stage I should say something of which some Members are aware, and in consequence of which there was some laughter last week when I made an interjection in the Chancellor's Budget speech. The Chancellor may not know that I am a non-smoker. I can scarcely remember ever having smoked. So far as I am personally concerned, this tax means nothing. I am concerned, however, with what I believe to be the interests of my constituents, and, as this is a national matter, with the interests of all constituents. Last week the Chancellor turned to me and gave me a lecture on smoking less. It reminds me of the story of the man who went to see a doctor. He had a sore throat, and the doctor said to him, "I think that you had better confine yourself to 10 cigarettes a day." The man went away.


Two months later he went to see the doctor again, and his throat was worse than ever. The doctor said, "Have you carried out my instructions?" The man replied, "Yes." The doctor said, "Have you stopped smoking so much? Do you only smoke 10 cigarettes a day?" The man said, "Yes, and that is the trouble. I was a non-smoker before." The Chancellor suggested to me last Tuesday that I should not throw away my stubs, when I hardly know what a stub is. The reason I am raising this matter goes far beyond any personal interest.
I come to the question of the problem of distribution. The Chancellor has just spoken on the question of rationing. Only last year there was suddenly imposed on the nation the rationing of bread. It was then suggested by some people that it would be difficult to carry out. It may be argued that there is a slight black market in bread, cakes, etc., but it is only a slight one, and bread rationing works effectively, and has proved most valuable. When P.A.Y.E. was introduced, it was suggested that it could not work, that it was not practicable, but it was introduced, it has worked, and it is an effective way of carrying-out Income Tax collection, so far as the people to whom it applies are concerned. Every step that is proposed is decried by those who do not want to see it introduced; it is always suggested that it cannot work, until the thing is put into operation, when it works and the public accept it. In almost every country in Europe, rationing of tobacco operates. There is hardly a country in Europe where cigarettes and tobacco are not rationed. But, of course, I would not argue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the relative efficiency or otherwise of those countries compared with our own. The fact is that, precisely because we are— we hope we are, and say we are—more efficient than they, we could introduce a better rationing system than France, Belgium or the other countries. I have some confidence in the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that respect.
I have stated by case, and explained why I oppose this Resolution. I oppose it basically, because it is an additional burden on earners of the lower wages in this country, and is against the policy of the Labour Party, which has been to equate the national burden, to bring down the burden of the workers by putting the onus, on those who can afford it. In this

respect I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a mistake. If he has done it deliberately, I give the warning to this House, and particularly to the Labour Members, that he is going away from Labour's own programme. The workers are bearing this burden, and, whether they bear it by giving up cigarettes or not, the fact is that, in spite of the call for patriotism—and it is not always so effective in time of peace—the rich are not going to give up any cigarettes: they will smoke as much as before. Here and there a small proportion—and I believe that hon. Members of this House, including hon. Members opposite may do so—will set themselves the task of smoking 25 per cent. or so less; but, in the main, they will continue as heretofore; the workers will have to bear the brunt. I believe this is an unjust tax the Chancellor has brought in, and for that reason I oppose it.
If the Chancellor has found in his correspondence that there is not so much opposition against it, and if, as other Members have said—as I think the hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer) said—the working people are prepared to suffer sacrifices, then I would say it is only because they believe that they need to make the sacrifice in order to save dollars for this country; but it is also because they do not know enough of the amount of dollars we are spending that we do not need to spend. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself said just a moment before that this is only the first shot to bring down dollar expenditure. I am quoting almost verbatim from what he said.

Mr. Dalton: That is quite right.

Mr. Piratin: This is the first shot. If this is the first shot, why must it be at the expense of the working class? Why should not the first shot be at the expense of the whole nation? I believe the country will not stand for this kind of thing. Hence, I oppose the Resolution. I hope the Chancellor will not suppose I am opposing it on the same grounds as the Conservatives are opposing it. I am opposed to it for the reasons I have given. I know that there are many on this side of the House who agree with me.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is one of the most courteous of


Ministers in his attendance in the House, and I think that, in his presence, I should disclose my personal interest. The day before the Budget my broker, having heard that the tobacco tax was going to be very small, put me into tobacco.

Mr. Mikardo: Leakage.

Mr. Baxter: He was, unfortunately, in touch with the wrong leak. I must say that I am wholly with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in wanting to cut imports of tobacco. I really am. I must say that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer wound slowly to the end of his Budget speech—" the longest day must have an end "—and when he finally came to that savage tax upon tobacco, there was not one of us who did not feel deep in his heart that that was a courageous thing to do. That was the first reaction. I felt it, and I gladly acknowledge it to the Chancellor. Next, I felt that it reassured 'me that we need not bother, as far as the Government are concerned, about a General Election this year. If that seems harsh, then I must say that the Budget seems to be one with very few concessions, and one which leaves the Chancellor ample opportunity a year from now to curry favour with a larger section of the public than he does this time. But, as events sometimes dominate Governments, instead of Governments dominating events. I must say that, when I heard the terms of his appeal, I began to feel some doubt about this tobacco business. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not as good an evangelist as he looks.

Mr. Mikardo: He does not look like one.

Mr. Baxter: He asked the nation to cut down its smoking by about 25 per cent., and he said, in effect, that if anybody wants to get out of that, he can do it by a special cash dispensation, by paying more for his cigarettes. That is what it sounded like. What was this sudden impost set upon the appeal to the better nature and the better judgment of the people to stop smoking? The Chancellor of the Exchequer may get £75 million, which he is going to take as conscience money. He did not mention the existence of it in his Budget. But he is really going to pocket conscience money—which I think in this case is overdoing the usual conscience money. He may get

more than the £75 million. Imports may actually go up on those of last year. It seems to me that if the real purpose of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to cut down imports he would not have done it that way.
I suspect that his interest from a revenue standpoint is very deep. After all, £75 million, even in these days of great extravagance, is a lot of money. I can imagine the Chancellor preparing his next Budget, weeping tears at the failure of the nation to smoke less, and saying, "After all, there is some compensation." The more I study this thing the more the revenue side appeals to me, as, I am sure, it does to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I should like to ask one or two questions about the possible—not the actual—evasions. I gather the Chancellor of the Exchequer is sincere about this. What about the co-operative societies? A member of a co-operative society—if I can have the Chancellor's attention—

Mr. Dalton: I am listening.

Mr. Baxter: A member of a co-operative society can purchase - unlimited cigarettes and nothing else. He need not purchase any other form of merchandise in the co-operative shops. His purchases may go up by 10 per cent. or 15 per cent., and he can share them with his friends. He gets a dividend on those. I know that is a form of trading which the co-operatives have. Nevertheless, he is going to purchase cigarettes at less than the tax the Chancellor is putting on the rest of the people. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is the fact. The net result on the man's pocket at the end of the week is that he has not paid the same for cigarettes. If the Chancellor is sincere about this, will he look at this point to see if there is some way of seeing that co-operative society members pay the same as everybody else does?

Mr. Frank McLeavy: Surely, the dividends which co-operative societies can pay compare with the dividends of people who have money invested in private industries selling tobacco or manufacturing tobacco? Surely, the same principle applies?

Mr. Baxter: We are talking about consumers. I know the hon. Member's idea. I do not trade with co-operative


societies.[HON. MEMBERS; Shame."] I will never trade with them, as long as they continue this unfair practice.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Robens: The hon. Member must be aware that many cooperative societies do not pay dividends on cigarettes and tobacco, and it may be that the principle will be extended to other goods, not because this would be departing from some principle, but because it would be paying a dividend upon taxation and not upon goods? Surely, it is also worth while recalling that this method of redistribution of profits also applies to essential foodstuffs?

Mr. Speaker: We are discussing the Tobacco Duty, and not the conduct of co-operative societies.

Mr. Baxter: I hope the Chancellor will use his influence to carry that practice right through the movement, as I am sure he could. I want to say one thing more in explaining why, with a good deal of regret, I am going to vote against this Resolution. [HON. MEMBERS: Oh.''] Of course I am.

Mr. Dalton: The hon. Member will balance the Communists.

Mr. Baxter: Perhaps so, but politics make strange bedfellows. The reason why I will vote against this Resolution is because the Chancellor makes no provision, as I had hoped he would, for the old age pensioner, who, as he himself admitted a few moments ago, is a well-deserving case and who is going to feel the effect of this taxation most unfairly. That is a thing which we resent. We recognise the Chancellor's difficulties, but we resent the measure he has taken to deal with them. Here is one thing which the Chancellor could have done. Perhaps it is too late now, and yet, if he took this step, he might go done to history as a great Chancellor, at any rate, great for one day.
The one thing which this Government does not do is trust the people. This Government does not trust the people of the country, and never has trusted the nation, as the Leader of the Opposition trusted it. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh if they like, but this Government issues instructions to the people. Why did not the Chancellor make this appeal to the nation: "I want

this to be a voluntary cutting down. I want those who are old and poor and who smoke few cigarettes not to suffer the same reduction as others. Will the theatres co-operate with me so that the abominable habit of smoking in theatres will be ended?" No other country in the world allows smoking in theatres as we do. To look through the cigarette smoke at some act on the stage, to have a man behind you trying to light a pipe while you are trying to hear the words of Shakespeare, is an abomination which the Chancellor could remove and the whole nation would support him in doing so. At the cinema, there is always a draught from the right to the left, and I always sit on the left. Could not the Chancellor persuade the railway companies to provide more carriages in which smoking is not allowed?
The Chancellor had a great chance, and, if he had made such an appeal, I would have responded at once. I think that every hon. Member of this House would have done the same thing, and we would all be cutting down. Since when has this nation failed to respond, when the need of the country demanded it? Is it too late now? I put this earnestly to the Chancellor. The voluntary system would have resulted in absolute fairness all over the country, because the little man, and the poor man who smoke few cigarettes would not have been penalised, and those of us who smoke too much might have improved our health. I think the Chancellor could have got this reduction without this punishing tax of £75 million which is so suspicious. I wonder what was the Chancellor's real objective. This tax is going to fall unfairly, and the Chancellor cannot assure the House that he will secure the reduction he wants, because he is gambling on saving the earnings of sin and getting it into the Treasury, because it is a sin if we go against the country's needs, and the Chancellor is going to profit by that sin. For these reasons, with or without the Communist Party, or half, of it, I shall vote against this Resolution.

Mr. Tom Brown: I listened to the Chancellor's statement, and I am encouraged to hope that the plea put forward by hon. Members on both sides of the House in relation to the taxation of tobacco and its effect upon old age pensioners will result in some concession being made to them. Since the presenta-


tion of the Budget a week ago, my postbag, and it may be the same with other hon. Members, has been full of letters complaining, not so much about the Budget in general, as about one or two particular items. The outstanding item of complaint is the tax upon tobacco, in relation to the hardship which it will inflict upon old age pensioners. I do not think I have had one letter complaining about the taxation of tobacco from the point of view of the ordinary member of the community. I am not a heavy smoker, but I am going to respond to the appeal of the Chancellor. Apart from the letters I have received, I have received a telegram, to which I attach very much importance, because it expresses the considered view of the representative body of the old age pensioners. It reads as follows:
The Executive Council of the National Federation of Old Age Pensioners Associations, representing two million old age pensioners of Great Britain, view with alarm and disgust the further cruel increased burden placed upon its members by the increase in the tax on tobacco, and urges you to endeavour to exempt these veterans from the imposition of this proposal. We strongly urge you to fight against the increase being imposed on old age pensioners, who have already suffered severely through the increased cost of wireless licences, and are being cut off from every particle of comfort in social life.
That is signed by the General Secretary of the National Federation of Old Age Pensioners Associations, Mr. Tyrell, of Southport. In addition to that, I have had letters from a number of my constituents and from people in other parts of the country who know of my interest in the welfare of old age pensioners, asking me to do all I can to persuade the Chancellor to make it easier for the old people at least to enjoy a smoke in the eventide of their retirement. It may not be much, but they enjoy it.
Some time ago, I had an opportunity of analysing the great number of budgets and returns which came to me from the old people of this country. One of the amazing features that revealed itself in the analysis thereof was that it was very rare to come across an old man in receipt of an old age pension who smoked more than one or one and a half ounces of tobacco a week. They are not extravagant smokers, not because they would not like to increase their consumption of tobacco, but—and this is a very important point —because their economic circumstances

prevent them from buying more than one and a half ounces a week. In giving the promise to this House that he was prepared further to consider some concession being made to the old people, the Chancellor made reference to administrative difficulties. I am not unmindful of the administrative difficulties which confront any Minister of the Crown when trying to arrange things for certain sections of the community. I remember some years ago, when there was an agitation for bringing into operation the Pay-as-youearn scheme with regard to Income Tax, that we were then told very forcibly by the late Sir Kingsley Wood, the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day, that it was administratively impossible to bring that scheme into operation, and that it could not be worked. He said that it would involve this, that and the other. Yet, at a later period, the present Chancellor's predecessor brought forth the scheme, and no one can deny the fact that it has been one of the greatest reforms ever introduced into this House in regard to the payment of Income Tax by the workers.
I contend that there is a way out of the difficulty. Suggestions have been made as to how the Chancellor can overcome the difficulty of differentiation between one section of the community and another, among them, suggestions by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton). Whilst it is not an easy thing to do, I believe that it is possible. I wish to follow the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, that it is possible for the retail tobacconist to get his supplies of tobacco for sale to the old age pensioner packed with a special wrapper. After all, old age pensioners do not go round the country buying tobacco; most of them buy their weekly tobacco from the same shop in the town or village. I believe that it is within the realm of possibility for that to be done.
7.15 p.m.
It is interesting to note that the Tobacco Duty, as we understand it today—I am not speaking about the name given to it under the old fiscal policy—originated in the year 1660. It was then twopence per lb. In the early part of the 18th century, it was raised to 6½d. a lb. At that time, it was thought that that was a very high


duty to be placed on tobacco. It is not my intention to weary the House with the many increases that have been placed upon tobacco imported into this country between the 18th century and 1910. But I want to start at 1910, and to go very quickly through the taxation that has since been placed on tobacco. In 1910 it was 3s. 8d. per lb.; in 1915 it was raised to 5s. 6d. per lb., and in May, 1917, it was raised to 7s. 4d. per lb., but, in the latter period of that year, which was a war period, agitation was so strong that it was reduced to 6s. 5d. per lb. In the years 1918, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1925 and 1926 it stood at a level of 8s. 2d. per lb. During the six years of the post-war period after the 1914–1918 war it remained at 8s. 2d. I am fully aware of the changed circumstances through which we are passing which make it possible for the Chancellor to increase the Tobacco Duty, but I think that he ought very seriously to consider the figures of the existing duty in the post-war years of the 1939–45 war in relation to the figures existing during the six years following the 1914–1918 war.
From 1931 there has been a slow but gradual increase in the duty payable on tobacco. In 1931 it was 9s. 6d. per lb.; in 1939 it was 11s. 6d. per lb.; in 1940 it was 17s. 6d. per lb.; in 1942 it was 29s. 6d. per lb.; in 1945 it was 38s. 8d. per lb., and today it stands at 54s. 10d. per lb. From the early days there has been a progressive increase, with the exception of the first six postwar years of the 1914–1918 war. None of those increases was imposed in order to lessen the consumption of tobacco in this country. But today we are told that the heavy taxation of 54s. 10d. per lb. has been imposed in an endeavour to decrease consumption of tobacco. That is just the reverse to what happened after the war of 1914–18. Today we are faced with a very different situation. What we have been spending on the very heavy consumption of tobacco in this country, we have been spending out of borrowed money. No man; whatever his vices may be—if tobacco smoking can be considered a vice—can go on spending borrowed money on something which he ought to manage to do without or, at least, to do with less of. I am not complaining about the general contents of the Budget. I could put forward a good case on behalf of the miner for an exemption from the tobacco tax, but I am not going to do that. My main point in rising in this

Debate was to put forward a plea on behalf of the old age pensioners.
Nobody can deny the fact that this Government, with the assistance of some hon. Members of the Opposition, have made concessions and helped to improve the economic position of the old age pensioners. We put forward our claims on their behalf in all honesty; we thought that we were doing right. That being so, we ought not to take away from those pensioners, in the form of increased taxation upon their tobacco, something which we gave them months ago in the form of increased pensions. I put forward that plea because I believe we are doing the right thing. I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) that we do not need to consider cheaper tobacco, or the pre-Budget price, for the women folk in the ranks of the old age pensioners. I am concerned about the veterans of industry who in the past have played their part, and I think we ought not to make it difficult for them to enjoy a little solace in their remaining years. I hope the Chancellor and his Department will give very serious consideration to see whether it is administratively possible for the old age pensioners to have their tobacco at the pre-Budget price in order that they may enjoy this comfort in the eventide of their lives.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I would first like to say a word in support of the plea which has been made by my namesake, the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown): The old age pensioners of this country have had no more active, steadfast, and consistent friend than he has shown himself to be. If we have to have this tax at all, and I hope we do not, then although administrative difficulties stand in the way—and, with some knowledge of the machine, I know that the problem is a difficult one, of exempting these old folks from the incidence of the tax—we ought to do our best to overcome them. But I do not want to see this tax at all. But it is a Resolution imposing this tax that we are discussing tonight. I always regard the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a man with a superlatively logical mind and when I find the right hon. Gentleman starting from exactly the same point that I start from in this matter, but finishing with an entirely opposite conclusion, I wonder whether his logic is at fault or mine. It is probably mine, but, at least, I will state


the position as I see it, and indicate where I disagree with the conclusion drawn by the Chancellor.
The Chancellor told us today, in a speech of the utmost consequence for the future, that this tax must be regarded not only on its own merits, but as a first step in checking dollar expenditure. He went on to foreshadow that in subsequent Burgets we must expect other steps to cut down dollar expenditure. Therefore, if the principle upon which the Chancellor proceeds in this tax be a bad one, then we must take into account the possibility that it will be infinitely worse when, the lull range of the reduction of dollar expenditure is taken into account. In other words, this is not only a tax, but a precedent. The Chancellor—and everyone on both sides of the House will agree with him here—starts from the premise that we cannot afford to spend, out of the American dollars which we have borrowed, so large a sum as we are spending on imported tobacco. With that broad proposition, which the Chancellor told us in his Budget speech is the initial, point of departure for the whole of his approach to this problem, I think every hon. Member would agree. That expenditure has got to come down. The question is not whether it has got to come down, but how it is to come down, and it is on the issue of how, that I join issue with the Chancellor.
Nor am I in the least impressed by the line of argument that he followed this afternoon. He told us that this tax was not going to be so punitive, because if we could cut down our consumption of tobacco by 25 per cent. then, on the basis of 20 cigarettes a day, we should only be spending an extra 1s. 3d. a week in tax, and that if we cut down our consumption by 30 per cent., we should be paying less tax than we were paying before. The Chancellor has only to go on with a few more percentages, taking successively 40 per cent., 50 per cent. and 60 per cent., and so on, to prove that he is a positive benefactor, and that all we have to do is to take the tax in good heart, cut down our smoking, and we shall find ourselves with a lot more money in the bank. It is an ingenious line of argument, but I beg to remind the House again that the right hon. Gentleman has told us that is a precedent, and that when he has dealt

with tobacco he will deal with food subsidies. I wonder if he will then apply the argument that if we cut down our consumption of meat, wheat, potatoes, eggs and so on, by 25 per cent. we shall not be so much worse off, that if we cut it down by 30 per cent, we shall be slightly better off, and that if we cut it by 100 per cent. we shall be a tremendous sight better off. We shall. But the only point is that we shall then be dead from malnutrition and under nourishment, in the attempt to sustain the Chancellor in the position of benefactor!
I agree we have got to cut down our consumption of American tobacco, and I agree further with the Chancellor that compulsory rationing is not the way to do it. I agree for two reasons. I believe that every time we consider a rationing scheme, we ought to consider the consequence of it in the terms of two or three things. First of all, we ought to consider it in terms of the labour withdrawn from productive industry to operate the rationing scheme. We have, say, something like 10,000 people engaged in the rationing of petrol. If those 10,000 men were not engaged in the rationing of petrol—

Mr. T. Brown: It is just over 3,000.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Just over 3,000 then. I do not argue about the numbers. I know it is a substantial number. Every man withdrawn from productive effort into unproductive effort is, to that extent, a national liability. Therefore, I agree with the Chancellor in saying that we must look at the numbers of staff required to operate a rationing scheme before we introduce such a scheme. The second thing we ought to consider—and to this I attach very great importance—is that if we apply a rationing scheme unnecessarily. of even when the balance of argument is, in other respects, in favour of it, the result of it may be, first of all, to produce a tremendous black market, and secondly to diminish the general respect in which the law of the country is held, so that there are additional burdens placed upon police, magistrates, etc. That is an element which must also be taken into account before we decide to impose a rationing scheme. On each of those accounts—the staff involved, the creation of a black market, and the diminishing respect for law and order, which has now reached a very advanced point in Britain—the Chancellor would be


abundantly justified in summing up against a compulsory rationing scheme.
What, then, is the conclusion? We must here take into account the Chancellor's own declaration that he was not regarding this as a revenue-raising tax. He was either sincere in saying that, or he was not sincere. I should hate to think—and I do not believe it is the case—that he was insincere in saying that what he was concerned about was not revenue, but the cutting down of tobacco from abroad, especially from the dollar areas. If that is so, I should have thought he would have looked, not only at the Second Resolution but at the Third Resolution. I must not discuss the Third Resolution in detail, but I am entitled to point out this fact, that at a time when the Chancellor is cutting down the import of tobacco from abroad, he is doing nothing to encourage the production of tobacco in this country. In the Third Resolution, to which we shall come shortly, we shall be imposing the same, internal Excise Duty on tobacco that we had in the past—indeed, I think it is somewhat increased under the terms of the Third Resolution. I submit we might recognise that the American colonies have been independent now for quite a long time. We might recognise that considerations which may have operated in 1660 do not apply in the year 1947.
7.30 p.m.
It is perfectly possible to grow tobacco in England. We have actively discouraged its production in the past, initially because of our relations with the State of Virginia, at that time a Colony of this country. But that situation has gone by long ago, and we ought to have recognised it in our fiscal policy long since. If the Chancellor had come along and said, "While I propose to cut down the imports of American tobacco, I propose to take the most energetic steps to increase the home production of tobacco," then his profession that he was not concerned with revenue is one which would have carried conviction. But he has not done it. Although I do not often find myself agreeing with the Communist Party—partly because I do not think it is Communist, and partly because I do not think it is a party—I did agree with the contribution of the Communist Member today, when he said that the Chancellor was not at all convincing in saying it was not revenue which he was making for in this tax. He suggested that if the Chancellor had been sincere he

would have applied any revenue that he fortuitously and unwillingly secured as a result of this tax to easing the burden somewhere else. I say, that if he were sincere in his view that this was not a revenue raising tax, he would have done something actively to remove the restriction on tobacco production in this country.
For all those reasons the Chancellor, in his speeches today and the other day, has not carried conviction with me. If he must take this line, I beg of him to rely upon the voluntary method in the application of a rationing system. He was quite right in saying that the distribution points of tobacco run into an extraordinarily high number—I think he mentioned 300,000. The interesting thing is, that they are nearly all small points of distribution—the local sweetshop and tobacconist, the local pub, and the village inn. These centres of distribution are not the great stores where the rich people deal; they are small shops, pubs and the like, where the poor folk deal. Now I have noticed this about shops run by poor folk, that a rationing system can be applied by them on a voluntary basis, which works much more smoothly than a compulsory rationing system with the whole force of Government behind it. [Interruption.] It is true from my experience—and I am entitled, if I may say so, to quote my experience—that when you are dealing with a stationary population, the individuals of which have their own customary tradesmen, with whom they are in the habit of dealing regularly, in the ordinary way tradesmen will try to give "fair do's" to their customers on a voluntary basis. That has been my experience throughout the difficulties of the war, and it is my experience today. As it is, we are to have neither the mathematical equality of compulsory rationing nor the removal of deterrents upon the production of tobacco at home. We have today a swingeing tax, not justified on the grounds of revenue, and no more effective than would be a single decision to reduce our imports of tobacco from America by 25 or 30 per cent., which the Chancellor stipulates as necessary. If the tobacco does not come here it cannot be sold, and he gets his effect with mathematical certainty.

Mr. Benn Levy: Mr. Benn Levy  indicated dissent.

Mr. Brown: But he does. It is no good the hon. Member shaking his head about


this. This is a mathematical proposition. If the Government now license the import of so many millions of pounds' worth of tobacco from America and decide to reduce that limit by 25 per cent. next year, then obviously they get their 25 per cent. reduction in tobacco imported from the United States. The Chancellor can, by a single decision, get the 25 per cent. saving that he wants. It does not follow at all that he will do that now. On the very ground that he chooses as the basis of his case for the House of Commons, there is no guarantee whatever that he will get the 25 per cent. saving, unless he also limits the import of American tobacco. In other words, his own proposition may or may not do what he wants to do, and it does it at the price, I submit, of great strain and unfairness inside Britain, whereas the other proposition secures, automatically, the desired result, with no greater strain inside Britain.

Mr. Benn Levy: I was shaking my head just now, not because I dissented from the proposition that by an import tax or a system for the reduction of bulk purchases, the imports of tobacco could be reduced mathematically correctly. It quite obviously could. I shook my head in distress that the hon. Member should be ignoring the real corollary of that, which is rationing.

Mr. Brown: I am very glad to hear that the hon. Member was not shaking his head in denial of the obvious and elementary truth which I was stating.

Mr. Benn Levy: I shook my head in sadness.

Mr. Brown: Whether in sadness, or for any other reason, so long as the hon. Member was not demonstrating that one and one do not make two, I am content. With regard to the other part of his argument, that the natural corollary of a limitation of imports is rationing—and that, I gather, is his point—I am not denying that some kind of distribution of supplies must be arranged. But I have urged this afternoon, and given what I think are quite cogent arguments for the view, that we can achieve that effect by voluntary rationing without the disabilities which apply to compulsory rationing. I do not know whether my argument carries conviction to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) or not.
I do not think the Government have made out their case on this matter. They have come forward with a scheme which will not guarantee the result they say is needed. It obviously involves vast unfairness in this country, and I believe it will act as a deterrent rather than as a promoter of production. If, in addition, the Government take the slightest notice of the speech made by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Shawcross), and start trying to impose all sorts of restrictions upon the personal freedom of people, trying to dictate to them when they must smoke and when they must not, and if they go further and select particular categories of people, and say that they must not smoke in their offices, or wherever it may be, then the Government are taking on a whole packet of trouble. The Chancellor has been good enough to say today that he will reconsider this tax as far as the old age pensioners are concerned. We are very grateful for that. I beg him to go farther, and to reconsider the whole question of this tax, which should go. It is mathematically uncertain, socially undesirable, and extremely unfair to the poorest classes in this country.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: There are, I know, many hon. Members on both sides of the House who wish to take part in this Debate, and it is in no attempt to bring the discussion to an end that I rise. However, I should like to say something with regard to the Chancellor's speech, while it is still fresh in the memories of hon. Members. My right hon. Friend the senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) told the House that if he thought he agreed with the Chancellor he liked always to speak before him. If I disagree with the Chancellor, I feel that I am always strengthened by speaking after him. The Debate we have already had on this Resolution, and the Debate that we had on the First Resolution, are the best possible arguments for maintaining the Report stage of the Budget Resolutions. On both these Resolutions, the Chancellor has already given promises of concessions which he hopes to make between now and the Finance Bill.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: If my memory serves me rightly, the Chancellor said he would consider what might be done before we reached the Committee stage of the


Finance Bill. He did not say he would do it before the Finance Bill was introduced.

Mr. Stanley: I do not see how the Financial Secretary's intervention alters very much the point of what I was saying. I am not trying to force the Chancellor into a promise which he did not give, but I am sure the Chancellor will agree that, on both the First and Second Resolutions, he has given grounds for hope that he will reconsider the matter between now and the introduction of the Finance Bill: That is a very potent argument for retaining this particular stage in our procedure.
All hon. Members who have spoken in the Debate from either side have spoken with moderation and, I think, under considerable feelings of difficulty. It is an extremely difficult subject we are discussing, a subject on which all of us are torn two ways. Certainly, I feel the difficulty, because when I listened to the Chancellor announcing the increase in the tobacco tax last Tuesday, my first feeling was that, whatever the merits, he had certainly displayed a considerable amount of courage in proposing an increase of tax of this character. But it is true that, throughout the Debate today, hon. Members opposite and the Chancellor have been trying to prove to us that it was not an act of courage. The hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer) said that the tax was welcomed in his constituency, and the Chancellor, by an abstruse process of mathematics which I found too complicated, and too inaccurate, to follow, set out to prove to my dazed mind that, as a result of this proposed innovation, if I would only give up smoking altogether I would be financially much better off than I am.
But I still feel, despite these claims, that this is likely to be, among a large number of people, an unpopular tax, and, therefore, a tax which it needs courage to introduce. Certainly, I welcome from the Chancellor a display of courage which might have served, had it only come a few weeks earlier, as an example to one of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues, the Minister of Defence; but in the days that are to come, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will, I am afraid, have need of more and more courage. However, on this, the first occasion on which he has displayed it, I am sorry not to be in a position to support him.

Mr. Dalton: What about the increase of the Surtax?

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I would describe that as Dutch courage. The trouble that I feel, and which I think other hon. Members in all parts of the House feel, about this tax is that here the Chancellor has fallen between two stools. He sets as an objective the reduction of tobacco imports, and, therefore, a reduction of our dollar expenditure, and he sets, too, as a target, an increase of indirect taxation to balance the reductions in direct taxation by way of Income Tax relief, to which the whole House has assented. I happen to agree with both those objectives, but I feel that by trying to do the two things at the same time, the right hon. Gentleman has succeeded in doing both of them in the worst possible way.
Let us consider, first, the cutting down of dollar expenditure. I accept, for the purpose of this part of my argument, that the cutting down of dollar expenditure is, in fact, the Chancellor's first concern. I fully agree with that objective. All my hon. Friends on this side feel, and have felt for some time, that in the very difficult situation with regard to the dollar exchange, where I am afraid the difficulties are going to increase, we have been spending a disproportionate amount upon the purchase of tobacco, and we are prepared to support him in the common objective of cutting down this expenditure. It has been argued in some quarters that, after all, the saving that will be made, even on the Chancellor's most optimistic estimate, is a small one, and that it represents only 2½ per cent. of our total dollar expenditure; but if we are to take every effort at economising in dollars and dismiss each one in turn because it is so small, we may end by dismissing things which in the aggregate would make a really substantial contribution. We have to start somewhere, and, frankly, I believe that tobacco is the best thing on which to start, but the question we have to ask ourselves, if once we say that our objective is to save dollars, is whether the Chancellor's proposal will, in fact, save dollars.
It has been the experience of the past that, with every increase of tobacco taxation, there has been in the first few days, or weeks, or even months, a decrease in consumption, but inevitably, on every


occasion, it has been followed by a gradual resumption of the original rate of smoking, and finally, despite the new burden, the expenditure on tobacco has actually increased. We have to face the fact that, rightly or wrongly, in the lives of a great many people in this country, smoking plays a quite different part today from what it did 20 or 30 years ago, when a tax of this sort was first imposed. To many people, at any rate, it is no longer a luxury which, with comparatively little difficulty, they can dispense with. To many people it has become almost as much a necessity of life as the staple commodities of human diet, and if anyone wants to have proof of that, not in this country but in the world as a whole, he has only to look at Europe during the last two years and see the extent to which the cigarette has played its part in the currency problems of Europe. The Chancellor has made an appeal that, apart from the increased duty that will have to be paid, everybody shall cut down his or her smoking. The right hon. Gentleman asked all of us to join with him in making that appeal. I can assure him that I will respond. I will start by making an appeal to myself, and I shall await with great interest to see how that appeal is received.

Mr. Gallacher: What about the noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke)?

Mr. Stanley: I am sure the Chancellor will agree with me that it has always proved to be very difficult to combine a voluntary appeal to people's good sense, patriotism and intelligence with restrictive measures taken at the same time by the Government. People may respond to one, they may have to obey the other, but they are inclined to say, "After all, if you put up the price in order to stop us, you have taken your action, and that being so, we are entitled to go on as it suits us best." Therefore, I say there is no certainty that the Chancellor will get the savings that he requires. In the course of this Debate, I left the Chamber for a few minutes in order to smoke a cigarette, and on looking at the evening paper, I saw headlines saying that already the consumption, which fell drastically after the increase of this tax, was beginning to rise.
All hon. Members will agree that the only safe and certain way for the Chancellor to secure the savings he requires would be to limit the importation of tobacco to the amount for which he is prepared to pay. No one, not even the Chancellor himself, would deny that if the only object is to save dollars, that is the first way in which one would consider it, and the way which, I imagine, in most of the other cases which he says will have to follow this, he himself or one of his colleagues will propose. Of course, we all admit that there are difficulties in the way of following that course in the case of tobacco. Having limited the amount of tobacco coming into this country, as you can quite easily, you are then faced with the difficulties of the distribution of a commodity in short supply among the internal consumers. I do not believe, however, that the Chancellor, for reasons which I will endeavour to state afterwards, was really quite fair in facing that difficulty.
There is the alternative, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) referred, of the voluntary rationing scheme. We all remember a time during the war, when, largely I think because of the destruction of factories and not through the failure of imports, there was a shortage of cigarettes. It caused considerable inconvenience and annoyance, but on the whole, as far as my own recollection goes—I was not in the Government and have no knowledge of the inside story—as far as I personally was concerned, it did not work too unfairly. If one had a regular supplier, he kept a regular, fair share for one. Equally, of course, there is the alternative of rationing. I fully share the right hon. Gentleman's dislike of rationing as a method. I fully share his dislike of diverting people from productive jobs to run a fresh and complicated rationing scheme, but really, when the right hon. Gentleman gives a pledge that he will consider sympathetically, and with hope in his heart, a relief for the old age pensioner, when he is able to do that and to face the administrative difficulties which there are in his way, I say that if he puts the same enthusiasm into it he will be perfectly well able to face the same administrative difficulties which would lie in the way of some general system of distribution. [An HON. MEMBER: "The numbers compared are larger."] I knew that


for myself, even before the hon. Gentleman, inspired by the Chancellor, told me.
Undoubtedly the administrative difficulties will be formidable. We hope he will be able to overcome them, but I believe that if he can overcome the administrative difficulties in the way of that proposal, it would not be impossible to overcome them over the field as a whole. After all, it depends on how important it is that these dollars should be saved. If it is essential that they should be saved, and if this is the only way in which one can make certain of saving them, then I venture to think, as the Chancellor himself said in his speech, that the difficulties may become less insuperable than is at first assumed. That leads me to the second point. I am not convinced that the necessity to save dollars is the only reason for the Chancellor's introducing this tax. He has, of course, kept disclaiming that he has any interest in the revenue which this proposal will bring him. He has said three times that it is not his primary concern. Was it not the Red Queen in "Alice in Wonderland" who said, "If I say a thing three times, it is so"?

Mr. Mack: The Chancellor is not red.

Mr. Stanley: I am sorry, it was a transference of ideas. I do not think the Chancellor can claim, and I really cannot believe him wholeheartedly when he stands up and says, that this £70 million does not matter, but is just a by-product of the way in which he has to stop the dollars going out, a secondary consideration and, in fact, if anything, rather an embarrassment which he would like if possible to get rid of. The fact is that this £70 million is an integral part of his Budget. It is an absolute necessity if he is to be able to give the reliefs in direct taxation and at the same time, as he said, to balance the Budget or even have a surplus at the top of the inflationary part of a trade cycle. Therefore, I believe that the need for this £70 million is one of the reasons, if not the chief reason, for taxing tobacco in this particular way. I agree with the Chancellor; just as I agree with him in his desire to save dollars, I agree with him in the necessity for raising sums of this amount by indirect taxation to offset the reliefs he has given on direct taxation.
Though it used not to be so when I first came into the House, it is now part of

Socialist fiscal theory to relieve direct taxation at the expense of increases of indirect taxation, and in present circumstances, with the danger of inflation in front of us, I am in entire agreement with that policy. Frankly, I do not agree with my noble Friend the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), who described this as an inflationary tax. On the contrary, I think it is definitely deflationary in its character, and I think, in the circumstances in which we are now placed, we should welcome it as such. I am not therefore complaining because the Chancellor feels that he must raise a sum of this amount by means of indirect taxation. If, however, there were no question of saving dollars, if all we had to do was to raise £70 million by indirect taxation, would anyone suggest that the fairest way to do it was to raise the whole of it from the consumers of one commodity alone? Would not everybody say, "If it has to be done, spread it fairly as between one sort of consumer and another"? Is it fair that the gambler, the drinker, or whoever it may be, should escape with no extra burden, while the whole of that burden falls upon one particular form of consumption which, to put it at the lowest, is no more anti-social than either of the other two I have mentioned?

Mr. Dalton: It needs more foreign exchange.

Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman has not quite followed my argument. I said, if we were not discussing the question of foreign exchange at all, would anyone say this was fair?

Mr. Kirkwood: But that is what we are considering.

Mr. Stanley: Yes, but we are concerned with two things—we are concerned with foreign exchange and with more revenue. The Chancellor has chosen to mix them up. I say let him divide them, let him come to us and propose the best possible way of restricting dollar purchases, which is by limiting in some way or another the actual imports into this country, and let him also come before us and propose the best possible way of raising £70 million by indirect taxation, which is by spreading it more fairly over various kinds of consumers and not concentrating on one. Let him do that, let him propose these things—which will be equally unpopular, there


is no question of escaping unpopularity—instead of trying to do the two things at once and failing to do both; let him come to us and propose in each case what we could recognise as the best remedy, and we should be able to give him our support. which tonight we cannot do.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 266; Noes, 118.

Division No. 132.]
AYES.
[8.0 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Follick, M.
Logan, D. G.


Alpass, J H.
Forman, J. C.
Longden, F.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Lyne, A. W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
McAdam, W.


Attewell, H. C
Gallacher, W.
McGhee, H. G.


Awbery, S. S
Ganley, Mrs. C S
Mack, J. D.


Ayles, W. H.
Gibbins, J.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Gibson, C. W.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)


Balfour, A.
Gilzean, A.
McKinlay, A. S.


Barstow, P. G.
Gooch, E. G.
McLeavy, F.


Barton, C.
Goodrich, H. E.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Battley, J. R.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Mann, Mrs. J.


Benson, G
Grenfell, D. R.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Beswick, F
Grey, C. F.
Mayhew, C. P.


Binns, J.
Grierson, E.
Medland, H. M.


Blackburn, A R.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Middleton, Mrs. L


Blenkinsop, A
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (LianeIly)
Mitchison, G. R.


Blyton, W. R.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Monslow, W.


Boardman, H.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Montague, F.


Bottomley, A. G.
Gunter, R. J.
Moody, A. S.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Guy, W. H.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Morris, P. (Swansea. W.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Hale, Leslie
Mort. D. L.


Bramall, Major E. A.
Hall, W. G.
Moyle, A.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Murray, J. D.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Nally, W.


Brown, George (Belper)
Hardy, E. A.
Naylor, T. E.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Harrison, J.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Oldfield, W. H.


Buchanan, G.
Haworth, J.
Paget, R. T.


Burke, W. A.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Carmichael, James
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Palmer, A. M. F


Castle, Mrs. B. A
Herbison, Miss M.
Pargiter, G. A.


Champion, A. J.
Hewitson, Capt. M
Parkin, B. T.


Chater, D.
Hicks, C.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hobson, C. R.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Cobb, F. A.
Holman, P.
Pearson, A


Cocks, F. S.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Peart, Capt. T. F.


Coldrick, W
House, G.
Piratin, P.


Collick, P.
Hoy, J.
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)


Colman, Miss G. M
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverh'pton, W.)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Corvedale, Viscount
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Price, M. Philips


Cove, W. G.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Pritt, D. N.


Dagger, G.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Proctor, W. T.


Daines, P.
Irving, W. J.
Pryde, D. J.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Janner, B.
Randall, H. E.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Jay, D. P. T.
Ranger, J.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Rankin, J.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
John, W
Reeves, J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Deer, G.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Rhodes, H.


Diamond, J.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Richards, R.


Dobbie, W.
Keenan, W.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Dodds, N. N.
Kendall, W. D.
Robens, A,


Donovan, T.
Kenyon, C.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Driberg, T. E. N.
King, E. M.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Royle, C.


Durbin, E. F. M.
Kinley, J.
Sargood, R.


Dye, S.
Kirkwood, D
Scollan, T.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Lang, G.
Sharp, Granville


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lavers, S.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn Sir H. (St. Helens)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Leslie, J. R
Shurmer, P.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Lever, N. H.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Levy, B. W.
Simmons, C. J.


Ewart, R.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Skeffington, A. M.


Fairhurst, F.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Skinnard, F. W.


Farthing, W. J
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Smith, C. (Colchester)




Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Thurtle, E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Timmons, J.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Titterington, M. F
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Solley, L. J.
Tolley, L.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Soskice, Maj. Sir F
Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Sparks, J. A
Usborne, Henry
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Stamford, W.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Williamson, T.


Steele, T.
Walkden, E.
Willis, E.


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Stross, Dr. B.
Watkins, T. E.
Wise, Major F. J


Stubbs, A. E.
Watson, W. M.
Woodburn, A.


Swingler, S.
Webb, M (Bradford, C.)
Woods, G. S.


Sylvester, G. O.
Weitzman, D.

Wyatt, W.


Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Yates, V. F.


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wells, W T. (Walsall)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
West, D. G.



Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Mr. Collindridge and Mr. Snow


Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B





NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R
Grant, Lady
Pickthorn, K


Astor, Hon. M.
Granville, E. (Eye)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Baldwin, A. E.
Grimston, R. V.
Prescott, Stanley


Barlow, Sir J.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir C
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.



Baxter, A. B.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Raikes, H. V.


Bowen, R.




Bower, N.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Ramsay, Maj. S


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hope, Lord J
Rayner, Brig. R.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Howard, Hon. A.
Renton, D.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G
Hurd, A.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E' b'rgh, W.)
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Butcher, H. W.
Jeffreys, General Sir G
Ropner, Col. L.


Carson, E.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Channon, H.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Scott, Lord W.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Snadden, W. M.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A [...]
Spence, H. R.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Studholme, H. G


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O
Sutcliffe, H


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
McCallum, Maj. D
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Cuthbert, W. N.
MacLeod, J
Touche, G. C.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Vane, W. M. F.


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Wadsworth, G.


Dower, E. L. C. (Caithness)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Drayson, G. B.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Marples, A. E.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Duthie, W. S.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Eccles, D. M.
Mellor, Sir J.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Erroll, F. J.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir [...].
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W S. (Cirencester)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Gage, C.
Nicholson, G.



Galbraith, Cmdr T. D
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Gammans, L. D.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Mr. Studholme and




Lieut.—Colonel Thorp.

Question put accordingly, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

the House divided: Ayes, 263: Noes, 118.

Division No. 133.]
AYES.
[8.11 p.m


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F J.
Brook, D. (Halifax)



Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Benson, G.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)


Alpass, J. H.
Beswick, F
Brown, George (Belper)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Binns, J.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Blackburn, A Ft
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T


Awbery, S. S
Blenkinsop, A
Buchanan, G.


Ayles, W. H.
Blyton, W. R.
Burke, W. A.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Boardman, H.
Carmichael, James


Balfour, A.
Bottomley, A. G.
Castle, Mrs. B. A


Barstow, P. G
Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Champion, A. J.


Barton, C.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Choler, D


Battley, J R
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Chetwynd, G R


Bechervaise, A E
Bramall, E. A.
Cobb, F A




Cocks, F. S.
Hynd, H (Hackney, C.)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Coldrick, W.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Rhodes, H.


Collick, P.
Irving, W. J
Richards, R.


Colman, Miss G. M
Janner, B.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G
Jay, D. P. T.
Robens, A.


Corvedale, Viscount
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Cove, W. G.
John, W.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Daggar, G.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Royle, C.


Daines, P.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Sargood, R.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Scollan, T.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Keenan, W.
Sharp, Granville


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Kenyon, C.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
King, E. M.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Deer, G.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E
Shurmer, P.


Diamond, J.
Kinley, J.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Dobbie, W.
Kirkwood, D
Simmons, C. J.


Dodds, N. N.
Lang, G.
Skeffington, A. M.


Donovan, T.
Lavers, S.
Skinnard, F. W.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Leslie, J. R
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Dumpleton, O. W.
Lever, N. H.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Durbin, E. F. M.
Levy, B. W
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Dye, S.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Solley, L. J.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Logan, D. G.
Sparks, J. A.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Longden, F.
Stamford, W.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Lyne, A. W.
Steele, T.


Ewart, R.
McAdam, W.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Fairhurst, F.
McGhee, H. G
Stross, Dr. B.


Farthing, W. J
Mack, J. D.
Stubbs, A. E.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Swingler, S.


Follick, M.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Sylvester, G O.


Forman, J. C.
McKinlay, A. S.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Maclean, N (Govan)
Taylor, R J (Morpeth)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Ganley, Mrs C. S.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Gibbins, J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Gibson, C. W
Mann, Mrs. J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Gilzean, A.
Morning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Thurtle, E.


Gooch, E. G.
Mayhew, C. P.
Timmons, J.


Goodrich, H. E.
Medland, H. M.
Titterington, M. F.


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Middleton, Mrs. L
Tolley, L.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Mitchison, G. R
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Monslow, W.
Usborne, Henry


Grenfell, D. R.
Montague, F.
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Grey, C. F.
Moody, A S.
Walkden, E.


Grierson, E.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Watkins, T. E.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (LIanelly)
Mort. D. L
Watson, W. M.


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Moyle, A.
Webb, M (Bradford, C.)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Murray, J. D.
Weitzman, D.


Gunter, R. J.
Nally, W.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Guy, W. H.
Naylor, T. E.
Wells, W T. (Walsall)


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
West, D. G.


Hale, Leslie
Oldheld, W. H.
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Hall, W. G.
Paget, R. T.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Hardy, E. A.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B


Harrison, J.
Pargiter, G. A.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Parkin, B. T.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Haworth, J.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Pearson, A.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Herbison, Miss M.
Peart, Capt. T. F.
Williamson, T.


Hewitson, Capt. M
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)
Willis, E.


Hicks, G.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Wills, Mrs. E. A


Hobson, C. R.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Wise, Major F. J


Holman, P.
Price, M. Philips
Woodburn, A.


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Pritt, D N.
Woods, G. S


House, G
Proctor, W. T.
Wyatt, W.


Hoy, J.
Pryde, D. J.
Yates, V. F


Hubbard, T.
Randall, H. E
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Ranger, J.



Hughes, H. D (Wolverh'pton, W.)
Rankin, J
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Reeves, J.
Mr. Collindridge and




Mr. Hannan.




NOES.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Bower, N.
Channon, H.


Astor, Hon. M.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W S.


Baldwin, A. E.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G
Clarke, Cal. R. S.


Barlow, Sir J.
Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G


Baxter, A. B.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Butcher, H. W.
Cooper-Key, E. M.


Bowen, R.
Carson, E
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U (Ludlow)







Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F C
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)


Crowder, Capt. John E
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A [...]
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Darling, Sir W. Y
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Ropner, Col. L.


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O
Scott, Lord W.


Drayson, G. B.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Drewe, C.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Snadden, W. M.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Spence, H. R.


Duthie, W. S.
MacLeod, J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon O.


Eccles, D. M.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Haro[...] (Bromley)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Erroll, F. J.
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Sutcliffe, H,


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Marples, A. E.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Gage, C.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T D
Mellor, Sir J.
Touche, G. C.


Gammans, L. D.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Vane, W. M. F.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Wadsworth, G.


Grant, Lady
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W S (Cirencester)
Ward, Hon. G. R


Granville, E. (Eye)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Grimston, R. V.
Nicholson, G.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Orr-Ewing, I. L
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pickthorn, K.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Hope, Lord J.
Ponsonby, Col. C E
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Howard, Hon. A.
Prescott, Stanley
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D



Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Jeffreys, General Sir C.
Raikes, H. V.
Commander Agnew and


Kendall, W. D.
Rayner, Brig. R
Mr. Studholme.


Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Renton, D.



Seventh Resolution read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — TOBACCO (EXCISE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. David Eccles: I want to ask the Financial Secretary whether this means that the duty on tobacco grown in the United Kingdom is greatly increased. If that is so, is it not very foolish? The object of these Resolutions is to save dollars. Small though our production may be, surely we ought to encourage it. Further, may I ask the Financial Secretary if it is not a fact that the main reason why we have not been able to develop tobacco growing in this country has been the difficulty of drying the tobacco? Quite recently, we have got over that difficulty with grass. The whole knowledge and practice of drying grass has improved out of all knowledge in the last 10 years. Might not that practice be applied to tobacco? Why has this duty been raised so high?

Mr. C. Williams: This Resolution deals with the growing of tobacco in this country and it has behind it a history of action which was not very wise in the interests of the country. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary to look at it from the point of view that the strongest reasons why we should have a complete abolition of this

duty are undoubtedly some of the reasons which were given by the Chancellor in support of the last Resolution. Here we are dealing with tobacco, a plant which can be grown quite easily in this country. It is a plant which is already grown in many gardens. If we had developed the growth of tobacco in this country in the same way as we have encouraged the growth of the potato, we might easily have had a very considerable industry today which would have saved a very large amount of dollars. I put that point of view because for a considerable portion of my life I lived in a place which, in all probability, was one of the first places where the potato was grown and tobacco smoked in this country.
It has always been a source of amazement to me, having some knowledge of the cultivation of plants, that we have not developed a plant of the tobacco type in such a way as to make it a real success here. In asking the Government to withdraw this Resolution, or at any rate to consider it from this wider point of view between now and the introduction of the Finance Bill, I wish to put one or two points in support of my argument that tobacco could be profitably grown in this country. At present it can be forced quite easily and planted out. In the course of eight to ten, or rather more weeks, it will produce leaves which can be made into tobacco. There is no doubt


that just as there are specialists in the raising of tomato plants, so we could have specialists in the raising of tobacco plants. They could then sell the plants. which could be grown out of doors in vast quantities. That is the first point I make in support of my argument that it is practicable to withdraw this Resolution.
The second point is that which has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) on the nature of drying grass. As he says, we have had a development in the drying of grass. That is technically a different question from the drying of the tobacco leaf, but undoubtedly in a very short time, with the modern knowledge of chemicals which we have, it should be possible to develop this further if only the tax is withdrawn. It is the tax to which I object. If we do not have this tax we will be able to produce something which undoubtedly will save for the Chancellor many American dollars, a thing for which he is always appealing. Having put it from that point of view; and having tried to show that it is practicable to build up an industry, I would say that there is one thing about the tax which must appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite. They are always telling us that we must assimilate new ideas. I thoroughly agree with that, provided that they are good ideas. If only the Government would abolish this tax they would be doing something comparatively new. It would not be entirely new. There have been different duties at different times. At one time there was in Hampshire a very prosperous tobacco growing industry. If the Government halved the duty it would be a very definite help to a new industry.
There is one point which I hope will not be used by the Government in defence of this Resolution. I am not very ingenious in working things out, but it is the only reason why I think the Government should insist on maintaining this tax. It is possible that the reply from the Front Bench opposite may be that this tax cannot be taken off or abolished because the Government are bound by the 1938 Agreement. If that is the position, I should have thought that the only complaint would be from America. Do they say that we have to maintain this Excise Duty in accordance with the Customs Duty? If so, can we not appeal to them that we

might be allowed to differentiate simply because it is a thing that would help us over a space of years to the tune of very much more than a few additional millions of dollars? That is one of the objections which might be raised by the Government as an argument against my suggestion. I cannot think of any others except for the good old fashioned argument that one must always pay the same duty as one would pay customs. That is one which I have never accepted, and neither have the Tory Party. That kind of stuff may be all right for Liberals or Socialists, but it no good for the real die-hard Tory, the moderate Tory or the progressive Tory such as I.
8.30 p.m.
There is the further question of inflation, and here we are on the primary reason why I object to this Resolution, except for my wish to start a new industry. If we are to deal with inflation, surely we must do everything we can to stop doing those things which in the past have prevented us producing in this country the things that we could produce. That is what the Chancellor, the President of the Board of Trade and innumerable other persons have been telling us. This Resolution fundamentally prevents any British industry today developing a means of stopping inflation. Surely this matter must appeal to the Government, and if they really mean anything in their talk about inflation, they cannot possibly continue with an impost of this sort which absolutely cripples the prospect of a new industry. This refers to the question of dollars. Probably it will be too late to hope for a crop from the plant this year, but if the Chancellor takes action now, in a few years we might easily have a tremendous crop and cut out a vast amount of the American import.
In this Resolution we are doing everything we can to stop incentive in production. We are rightly told that we must produce more. Surely, if we could only produce in the course of the next two or three years a few thousand tons of British-grown tobacco, which I believe is a possibility, and if we could do that by halving or withdrawing this duty, it would be a tremendous incentive. The crop would be more use than some of the things grown at home. There may be arguments that our soil or climate are not suitable, but surely we are not less efficient as cultivators than they used to be


in Hampshire. The scientists of this country could, I am sure, quickly raise a variety as suitable for our soil and climate as are the varieties grown in America and elsewhere suited to conditions there.
These are some of the reasons why I ask the Government to withdraw this Resolution or halve the duty. I hope I shall have some support from all parts of the House. I am convinced that if we reduced this duty or withdrew it we should do something to make a new British industry, encourage incentives in this country, and, above all, lay down a long-term policy of helping to secure a saving of dollars in the future. One or two hon. Members seem to treat this lightly, but many great industries have been set up on much more slender foundations than this. I think it was a previous Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer who encouraged for the first time the growing of sugar in this country, and it was on that production that we relied during the war for our sugar. That has been supported by all parties ever since.
I ask whether, if we cannot have a definite answer tonight, we may not have a reply from the Government that they will go into this matter again from the point of view I have mentioned, because it is not much good for us to continue swallowing the things we did in the past and appealing, as the Chancellor asked us to do, to the people to reduce their tobacco consumption if there is any possibility, as many of us believe there is, of having an industry in this country to produce that commodity.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: We have here another example of the great advantage of this Report stage procedure on the Ways and Means Resolutions. Here is a matter which would hardly have been discussed at all had it not been for this opportunity. The House has just approved by a large majority a swingeing increase in the Customs Duty on tobacco, and here we have the matter of Excise which is, of course, an entirely different matter. None of the arguments adduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the passing of the last Resolution can be applied to this. The saving of dollars is not relevant at all.
I am one of those who have very little knowledge of the extent of the tobacco

industry in this country. I want the Financial Secretary to tell us a little about it. I cannot believe that there is none at all, because, if that is the case, why are we going through this rather laborious procedure for imposing taxation on a nonexistent commodity in this very vicious manner? There must be a reason for it. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) has explained that tobacco used to be grown on the soil of Hampshire. I cannot imagine that is the only soil on which it is possible to grow it. This might be a very happy issue out of our afflictions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has just gone away promising to look into the whole question of a preferential rate for old age pensioners. Here surely is an opportunity, if properly developed, of at least providing from homegrown tobacco sufficient supplies for that section of the community. I wonder whether the Government would not like to examine that, because it seems a most admirable possibility if properly developed. It is quite true that it might not develop in time for the old age pensioners of today, but those of us who are here now might reap the reward when we reach pensionable age of buying tobacco at a preferential rate.
I would like to ask the Financial Secretary, in order to get the matter into perspective, what acreage, if any, is under cultivation for tobacco in this country, what is the yield of the Excise Duty, and what would be the cost to the Exchequer if the Excise Duty were to be removed. This seems a most admirable Resolution to withdraw if all this is true. If there is no tobacco grown here, the yield is nonexistent. There must be some other reason why the Resolution is brought forward. Why is it? I think this is a possibility. I gather we are to have a reply from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General. I think that the 1938 agreement comes into this in some way. I imagined that it would come into the next Resolution dealing with drawback, but I did not realise that it referred to this particular Excise Duty. Perhaps the Solicitor-General would give details, if the figures are not complicated, and perhaps he would tell us at the same time, because it is important, whether the Government intends to do anything or will attempt to do anything to stimulate the tobacco industry in this country. That might not


only help to relieve our dollar embarrassment, but might give us a supply of homegrown tobacco which could be sold at a favourable rate to old-age pensioners and comparable people.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): The Excise rate is increased correspondingly to the preferential Customs rate less, in the case of homegrown tobacco, 2d. to compensate the home manufacturer for the expenses that he incurs in complying with the Excise regulations. In the case of Negrohead and Cavendish tobacco, which is manufactured tobacco in bond, the duty of 2d. does not appear in the Excise rate because it is paid on deposit. That is the position as the Resolution is framed. Hon Members want to know what is the position with regard to the tobacco industry in this country and why we must have this Excise rate. May I say at once, upon the assumption that there is a case for altering or abolishing the Excise rate, that it would not be appropriate, having regard to our present commitments and by virtue of the negotiations going on in relation to international trade agreements, to make any alteration now in our Excise Duty. In point of fact, it would not make much difference if we did, because, as hon. Gentlemen opposite have said, if you have not an industry there is not much point in having an Excise Duty.
The position with regard to home-grown tobacco is this. Repeated attempts have been made to begin an industry in tobacco in this country. They have practically all failed. The only one which achieved some measure of success, and reached the stage at which it could sell commercially home-grown tobacco, was the one mentioned by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) in Hampsire. That manufacture has now come to an end so that, virtually speaking, the answer to the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) with regard to acreage is "Nil." That is as the matter stands, and, therefore, I do not think I need answer the questions he put with regard to the amount of revenue we would lose if we abolished the Excise Duty.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite indicated assent.

The Solicitor-General: But, shortly, my answer is that at the moment it has not been found possible, with that sole exception, to build up a tobacco industry here, even with the lower duty, that is to say, with the unincreased Excise Duty it has not been found feasible, owing, I am told, to climatic, soil, and various other difficulties. Whether it would be possible in the future, by adopting other methods of cultivation, to build up such an industry, I am not in a position to say at the moment. There has been no indication. However, as I said earlier, we could not appropriately, having regard to the negotiations going on at the moment, alter the relation of Excise Duty as imposed in this country to preferential Customs rate in relation to tobacco. Therefore, even if there is a case for their abolition, that case would have to be examined in the future, it cannot be done at the moment.

Mr. C. Williams: I quite understand the point made by the Solicitor-General, but will he look into the matter between now and the introduction of the Finance Bill, and also go into the matter with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and consider whether, for a new industry such as might be possible, we are to be bound for an indefinite time by what I regard as past failures? Will he not offer some hope to a new industry?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman's questions proceed upon the hypothesis that there is a chance of a new industry. I was saying that there is no indication of any such chance at all because of climatic and other natural obstacles. However, my right hon. Friend is always extremely receptive to arguments, from whatever quarter of the House they come. He will certainly bear in mind what has been said, but at the moment I am bound to say that the question is more or less academic. There is no industry to speak of, there is no chance of an industry in the near future, there are natural difficulties which apparently cannot be surmounted or only in a small degree, and at the moment, because of our international commitments, it would not be appropriate to alter the Excise Duty. Therefore, I would ask the House to say that this Resolution is one they can accept for the reasons I have given.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Assheton: This has been a rather curious Debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) evidently knows a great deal about the subject and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) raised the matter. At first blush, it would appear that the question is quite simple: can tobacco be grown in England? If the answer is "Yes," let us reduce the duty at once, and give growers the opportunity of growing tobacco, and thus saving the Chancellor dollars. If tobacco cannot be grown, remove the duty and withdraw the Resolution because, what on earth is the sense of having the duty in that case? Then the Solicitor-General, who is always helpful, puts forward a reason for the Resolution, but it is one about which I am not quite certain yet. He said that it was impossible to differentiate between the Excise and preferential duties having regard to negotiations now going on. He did not tell us what those negotiations were, and with whom they were conducted, and what they were about.

Mr. Gibson: It is all in the "Daily Mail."

The Solicitor-General: Geneva.

Mr. Assheton: He now says in Geneva.

The Solicitor-General: I did say, quite clearly, the Geneva trade negotiations.

Mr. Assheton: I accept at once that the hon. and learned Gentleman said that, but it did not reach me. Not wishing to embarrass His Majesty's Government in any negotiations in which they are engaged, we on this side do not propose to press this matter to a Division. But we are not at all satisfied with the position, and I urge the hon. and learned Gentleman to represent to the Chancellor the views which have been put forward. It may be possible for the Chancellor to say that either this Excise Duty can be removed altogether, or can be reduced. It seems rather an odd state of affairs to find an Excise Duty which brings in no excise. It certainly gives a certain amount of trouble, as it involves hon. Members of this House in discussion, and if opportunity can be taken to remove the duty, I am sure hon. Members would be glad.

Orders of the Day — TOBACCO (DRAWBACK)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. Assheton: There have been certain comments on the preferential duty in the course of our discussion, and we should like to hear the view of the Solicitor-General on this Resolution.

The Solicitor-General: Drawback rates are increased correspondingly, subject to this, that there are increases of three-pence in the case of stalks ranging up to Is. a pound in the case of cigarettes. Hon. Members will be able to make the calculations from the Tables in the Resolution. The margins are fixed as being adequate to compensate the home manufacturer for the expense to which he is put in having to handle the duty payable.
A considerable element is the expense of interest on the money he has to allow to pay the duty before he gets it back when the drawback is paid. It is in regard to that sort of expense that it has been thought appropriate to put the manufacturer in a position in which he can reimburse himself for the extra expenditure which is occasioned.

Mr. C. Williams: It is a pity that we should have this Resolution. I should not like it to go through without some of us expressing our grave doubts whether, in this matter, we are dealing altogether fairly with those whom it may concern. I quite realise that there are difficulties of negotiations and other matters at the present time, and I have no wish to prevent our being receptive to any proposal, but it is most discouraging that there should not be a more adequate margin, because of the height of the duty, than the one we have at present. It is typical of what is happening today. We are promised something; then comes a Resolution, with only a very narrow margin allowed. There will be no vote against the Resolution, and I do not think that there is much hope of getting the Government to look into this. It is not the sort of thing they would look into. It would be helpful if they did so, but that is not their line at present. I thoroughly dislike the Resolution, and I accept it only with grave reluctance. I am strengthened in my opinion of the


Resolution by the apparent pleasure of one of the very junior Whips, who is obviously glad to have this Resolution.

Orders of the Day — ARTIFICIAL SILK (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. Assheton: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has explained to the House the reasons which prompted him to make this change with regard to the Customs and Excise Duties on artificial silk. I wish to express the view of this side of the House in concurring with the Chancellor's recommendation. It has seemed to some of us rather strange that, for so many years, artificial silk has been subject to these particular duties. It is consistent with the great increase in the development of that trade, and with the position it has gained in the world as a whole, that we should now adopt the course which is proposed. I do not know whether there are any points of detail which any Members on this side of the House wish to put, but so far as the general principles are concerned, we on this side are glad to endorse the proposal.

Mr. C. Williams: rose—

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Williams: I really fail to see why, when something of this sort is proposed, and when my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench has said it is something good, hon. Gentlemen opposite should be so antagonistic to their own Front Bench, as to object to my saying something in favour of their Budget. I find these changes in their opinions most disheartening. This is a rather progressive policy which the Government are carrying out in this Resolution. For that reason I welcome it, and I wish that the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary or the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General would convey to the Chancellor of the Exchequer our appreciation of what he is doing here, and tell him it is a very great pity he could not have done something else in other respects. In spite of the jeers from the back benches behind

the Government, he can be assured that our party will give him fair play when he is doing something reasonable, such as this is.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: There is one question I should like to ask. I should like to know how this question affects artificial silk used in tyres.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): That question arises on the next Resolution.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: This is one of the few Budget changes which repeals taxation, and I was expecting to see large numbers of hon. Members opposite rising in their places to express appreciation and approval of this very pleasant contrast with our rather painful experience in the matter of tobacco. I do not think it should go without a remark that here is a definite lightening of taxation which I should have thought the House as a whole would welcome. For that reason it was a little distressing that my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams)—

Mr. Tolley: He is always very distressing.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I hope the hon. Member does not misunderstand me. I was about to say that it was distressing to me, that my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay when he rose to speak was greeted with groans coming from the chairman of the London County Council Housing Committee, who must have much on his mind and more on his conscience. But I wish to place on record how grateful the Opposition are for this concession in this matter of artifical silk, and I hope that before the Resolution is passed it will be commended by one of the Government supporters.

Mr. Harold Davies: It is indeed delightful to hear the Opposition supporting the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As a Member who represents a silk constituency, I rise to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on behalf of many of the people in my constituency in Staffordshire, for taking this action. I should like to remind the House that many Members on both sides of the House who represent silk constituencies pointed out the importance of this matter last year when


we were discussing the Budget. I am quite sure that this reduction in taxation will play a big part in acting as an incentive in the coming year. On behalf of my constituency I thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Orders of the Day — ALLOWANCE FOR ARTIFICIAL SILK USED IN TYRES (CUSTOMS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I must apologise once again for having confused these two Resolutions. I rise now to put the question which I started to ask on the previous Resolution. It seems to me rather important from the point of view of manufacturers. I ask the Financial Secretary for some explanation of what exactly is the intention of the Government in this Resolution. What difference is it going to make, and what benefits do the Government hope to bring to this country. by its introduction?

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: As the House will remember, in the Finance Bill last year, consequent on the decision to repeal the duty on artificial silk, it was agreed that an allowance of 6d. per pound should be paid on artificial silk yarns and tissues used in the manufacture of tyres. We have just dealt with the Resolution in which it is proposed that this duty should be repealed, and, that being so, the allowance of 6d. a pound must come to an end, because, obviously, if no duty is paid, no allowance is due. As from the same date on which the duty is repealed, the allowance to manufacturers will come to an end.

Mr. C. Williams: We have had a thoroughly practical answer. The right hon. Gentleman has explained that there cannot be an allowance because we are repealing the duty, and I congratulate him on having got so far. That, of course, is practical. But why has this date been chosen? The first of May is a ridiculous date. Why could not this have been done at the proper time? I can see that, as we have passed the previous Resolution, it will be a little difficult to change it now. If we repealed the duty and continued to pay this allowance, the Treasury

would be paying out a small sum for two or three weeks, and would probably find it a frightful headache and would further increase the large number of civil servants. I would like to know why this rather Mad Hatter date has been chosen, because it does not seem to have any relationship to 16th April. It seems to be a case of just hanging on to the duty for a couple of weeks for no particular purpose, unless there is some obscure reason—and I am very handicapped in this matter—about this date, and why it should be chosen.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Quite recently, the date has been fixed in consultation and in agreement with the trade. Quite obviously, there was no need for the change to come into operation straight away, as, for example, the Tobacco Duty had to do. Consultations have taken place with the trade, and it has been agreed, in order to make certain adjustments, that 1st May was a convenient date to all concerned. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, although it might sound like a polling day to him, the date has been fixed as the first day of the following month, which seemed to us quite reasonable, and it has been agreed between the Government and the trade.

Mr. Assheton: Before the right hon. Gentleman resumes his seat, would he be good enough to answer the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre)?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not know whether the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) was in the House at the time, but to the best of my belief, I answered the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre).

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I understand that this Resolution deals with Customs, and, therefore, with the imported article. What I asked the right hon. Gentleman was, how did this Resolution benefit the home manufacturers?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am sorry; I thought that was understood. We are dealing with Excise, and not with Customs.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: It says "Customs."

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I know—Customs and Excise. Actually, these are tyres manufactured in this country.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Where does the word "Excise" appear in this Resolution?

Mr. Assheton: If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the white Order Paper, he will see the word "Customs" in brackets after the words:
Allowance for Artificial Silk used in Tyres.
That is the point to which my hon. and gallant Friend is directing the right hon. Gentleman's attention.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The Financial Secretary has made a statement which is of considerable importance to the home manufacturers of tyres. In the heading and in the third line of the Resolution, it says "Customs." In no place in the Resolution does it say "Excise."

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is the Excise Duty which is being repealed. It is true that the word "Customs" appears in the Resolution, but, actually, the allowance made is an allowance in respect of Excise Duty, which is mentioned in the Resolution to which I can no longer refer because we have just agreed to it and passed it.

Mr. Assheton: With the permission of the House—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken at least twice.

Mr. Assheton: I was going to ask the permission of the House to clear up the point. Is the explanation that a mistake has been made in the copy of the Resolution now before us? If so, perhaps the Government representatives would tell us. I have seldom seen a mistake in anything to do with Customs and Excise. If it is not a mistake, perhaps the Financial Secretary would be good enough to answer the point put to him by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The answer is that we have to cover imports under this head. The allowance will also have to be withdrawn from material imported for the manufacture of tyres, to which this Resolution applies.

Mr. Nicholson: Can the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that there is a sharp distinction between Customs and Excise? Surely, it is an Excise and not a Customs Duty? I understand that Customs Duties are paid at the port. Ex-

cise Duties are something quite different. Surely, there has been some trip up here?

Mr. Rhodes: Am I to understand that the rayon yarns which we are importing from Italy at about half the price at which Courtaulds can make them have had the Import Duty removed from them?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: There is a further complication. While in the immediately preceding Resolution we had the words "Customs and Excise," in this Resolution we are limiting ourselves to the word "Customs." It would seem that instead of carrying out what is perfectly clearly stated to be the intention of His Majesty's Government, we are not, in fact, doing what we all want to do. Can we have some explanation of the matter? It is certainly very complicated.

The Solicitor-General: Section 11 of the Finance Act, 1946, provides for this allowance in respect of Customs Duty paid on artificial silk. No allowance is provided to compensate for Excise Duty. All the previous Resolution does is to abolish the Excise Duty by 6d. and to reduce the Customs Duty in the case of yarn and of strip by 6d. Therefore, in order to abolish the allowance, we only have to refer to the abolition of the Customs Duty, because Section 11 never provided for an allowance in the case of Excise. The Resolution is perfectly correct as it stands. Section 11 only deals with an allowance for Customs and not for Excise. We cut out the Excise and proportionately reduce Customs. Therefore, in order to abolish the allowance we refer to the Customs reduction in the Financial Resolution.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: This Resolution penalises the home market because it takes off from Customs a duty which previously obtained.

The Solicitor-General: No, it does not. Previously when both Customs and Excise Duties were 6d. more, there was a corresponding allowance of 6d. Now we have cut both down, and all we have done is to take 6d. away. Therefore, they are exactly as they were before the Resolution was made. This is consequential upon the previous Resolution, and the position is exactly as it was before.

Orders of the Day — PURCHASE TAX (INTERMEDIATE AND HIGHER RATES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. Bramall: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been very forthcoming this evening in promising to look into the questions of tobacco for old age pensioners and of kerosene oil for farm tractors. I want to ask my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to be equally gracious in looking into the case of another class of people whom I believe to be very deserving of consideration. I refer to those people who are endeavouring to buy, as they must, electric or gas cooking apparatus for installation in new houses, whether they be people who by luck or with management have obtained a house on a local authority's housing list, or have been bombed out of their house and have had the house rebuilt.
I think my right hon. Friend will agree with these two premises, first, that a cooking stove is in no sense a luxury and is something that every resident must possess, and, second, that by controlling or raising the price of cooking stoves nothing is done towards discouraging people from using their stoves. Once a person has bought a stove, the initial price is in no sense the governing factor in the amount of gas or electricity which may be used by the stove. Nobody buys a cooking stove for fun; people do not buy stoves to stand in the corner of a room. They do not buy more than one cooking stove. It is in an entirely different category from the type of heating apparatus which was so cheap before the imposition of the Purchase Tax, and which has been bought in such plentiful, and probably, in some cases, excessive quantities. Some people have in every room one of these small electric stoves which they use when they go into those rooms.
9.15 p.m.
The cooking stove, whether it is gas or electricity, is in an entirely different category. There is the case of people who, after terrible periods of waiting, often after living in most unsatisfactory housing conditions, have at last managed to obtain a house only to find, on taking possession of that house, that they arc now subjected to a quite arbitrary tax in

the shape of extra payment for their cooking stove. I have had numerous letters on this subject. One letter, which I had today, was from a person who has had a cooking stove on order since 1944; he has offered to pay for that cooking stove but was told that he could not pay until delivery was made. Now, when delivery is made, he finds he has to pay a heavy extra tax.
I should also like to refer to the position of bombed-out people, people who perhaps lost everything in a house which was totally destroyed, who have received from the War Damage Commission, together with payment for their chattels, payment for the replacement of their cooking stoves. Another letter I received today cited the instance of a person who received £14 as compensation for the loss of a cooking stove which, before this Resolution, would have cost £26, but which now, with this extra Purchase Tax, will cost £36. This does seem a very unfair imposition. It will do nothing to reduce gas or electricity consumption, because every person must have a cooking stove. The person who is faced with this extra imposition will not say to himself or herself: "All right, I will go without a stove." Presumably, however much the Chancellor may wish to reduce smoking to the point where we leave it off altogether, he will hardly wish to reduce cooking to the point where we leave it off altogether. Presumably, it is realised that we must cook to some extent, and the person who has a new house has as much right to cook as the person who already enjoys the possession of a residence. Therefore, it will do nothing to diminish gas or electricity consumption, and will be a purely arbitrary imposition on a certain class of people, and a class of people which, in a very great many cases, has already suffered misfortune.
From the administrative point of view, it is possible that the Financial Secretary will raise the objection often raised by the Chancellor when he is asked to consider a remission of Purchase Tax for certain classes of people. I have in mind, for instance, the case of motor cars for disabled men. In that case, the Chancellor, quite rightly to my mind, has said that we cannot do that because we cannot know that a particular motor car will go to a disabled man. But I suggest that in this instance the administration is perfectly easy. People who are setting up a new


home buy many of the things which they require on priority dockets. They are able to buy floor coverings, beds, and a hundred and one other things only because they are setting up home for the first time. Therefore, I suggest these people should also be issued with priority dockets to enable them to obtain cooking stoves, because a cooking stove is as much a part of the house as the front door, the bath, the lavatory, or anything else; it is an absolutely essential requirement. To put a heavy Purchase Tax on cooking stoves will not assist in cutting down gas and electricity consumption, but will be a purely arbitrary tax, very often on a section of the community which has already suffered very heavy misfortune.

Mr. David Renton: I should like to reinforce the argument so eloquently put by the hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Bramall). In doing so, I should like to remind the Government that it is not only the experts but the nation which, by now, firmly believes that the most economical use of coal is achieved by using it when it has been converted into electricity; that is so with regard to heating, lighting and cooking. At this moment the Chancellor of the Exchequer should do nothing to discourage the use of electricity by raising the Purchase Tax on electrical appliances which have to do with using fuel which has been converted into electricity. Besides that argument, I have several arguments whereby I wish to put forward important objections—

Mr. Harold Davies: I cannot accept the statement that the use of electricity is the cheapest way of using coal to go by with without a protest, because at the present moment it is the most expensive way of using our coal. Nevertheless, I support the hon. Member's general point.

Mr. Renton: I am not in a position to quote chapter and verse to the hon. Member, but I can assure him that it has come to my notice, and may have come to the notice of many other hon. Members not once but frequently in the past few months, that many experts do believe that the most economical way to use coal in the long run, provided electricity services are extended, is to convert that coal into electricity, because thereby only the essentials are used to produce the electric power, and the non-essentials instead of

going up the chimney, are converted to other uses. I understand the experts are unanimous in that view, and that being so—

Sir Stanley Reed: I do not wish to interrupt, but I should be sorry if it went forth from this discussion that electricity is the cheapest source of heat for cooking in comparison with gas, and solid fuel in the heat storage stove.

Mr. Renton: Far be it from me to sit in judgment upon my hon. Friends to the right or my hon. Friends to the left, but if I may take up the comment made by my hon. Friend to the right, apparently in his' calculation he has forgotten that coal, before it goes to the power stations, is, I understand, generally processed, and a certain amount is saved which otherwise goes up the chimney when solid fuel is burnt.
However, I proceed to the other part of my argument, which is that the Resolution as drafted cannot be clear to the public. I think we are entitled to some enlightenment from the learned Solicitor-General as to the effect of these words in the table, because a lot must turn upon them:
Domestic appliances and domestic apparatus, being appliances and apparatus of a kind suitable for operation from electric or gas mains.
Those are the words which bring the Purchase Tax into operation, and I would like to give an example to illustrate the difficulty I feel in this matter. Take the ordinary electric lamp, a lamp normally used for an office table or a bedside: is it in all cases a domestic appliance, or is it only a domestic appliance when it is used in domestic quarters, in somebody's home? Will the learned Solicitor-General tell me whether an ordinary bedside lamp is still a domestic appliance when it is at the bedside of, say, a soldier in barracks? What is the position of hospitals, nursing homes and doctors' surgeries with regard to this Resolution? Are the various appliances which can be bought for such places to be treated as domestic appliances subject to the Purchase Tax, or are they free from Purchase Tax? Then, with regard to the exemptions in the table, it appears that there is an unpleasant piece of sex discrimination, because we find that hair-drying machines are not included in the general provision, and that means that ladies will be allowed to have their hair


dried with a machine which has not been subject to Purchase Tax, whereas electric razors are included.

Mr. Harold Davies: They are a nuisance anyway.

Mr. Renton: Why there should be this sex discrimination I do not know. I am not prejudiced, because I do not use an electric razor, which is nobody's misfortune but my own. It seems that before this Resolution goes much further it is capable of clarification, amplification and adjustment. Meanwhile, we should be grateful for the learned Solicitor-General's comments upon it.

Mrs. Manning: Whilst I appreciate the Chancellor's motives as outlined in this Resolution, I hope very much he will be guided by some of us on this side of the House and probably by some on the other side of the House as well, and that he will not include electric cookers in the list of those domestic appliances on which the extra tax will be imposed. There are two points in connection with this, which I have discussed with a considerable number of women in my constituency. The first is that the electric cooker is a piece of domestic apparatus which results in a considerable saving of fuel. It is one of the most economical forms of cooking, once a woman can use it intelligently. I admit that until a woman has learned to use the electric cooker, she can waste a good deal of heat, but once a woman gets the hang of it and knows how to use the residual heat in the cooker, there is an enormous saving of fuel.
In the summer months if a woman has to light a fire to do her cooking the amount of fuel which is wasted in order to do the cooking on a kitchen range is surprising. A great many women have already installed electric cookers in their homes. Only a small class are going to be denied the electric cooker, if this tax is reimposed. The woman who can afford a cooker has already installed it in her home. The more modern houses have electric cookers in them. The new council houses which will be built under Government schemes have electric cookers installed in them so I do not know what is going to be saved in this way with all these new houses going up and with electric cookers going into them. The only woman who is going to be denied the electric cooker is the woman

in the old fashioned house who needs it much more than the other woman, because her work is immeasurably harder than that of the woman who is living in a small, modern house and immeasurably harder than the work of any one living in those lovely, modern labour-saving houses many of which have already been built by councils up and down the country. The only class who will be penalised if this tax is reimposed on cookers, are the hardest worked class of housewives in this country today, the women who are unable to afford to pay for the electric cooker, and who live in old-fashioned houses.
I had a letter recently from a woman in my constituency. She is an example of the class of women who have been saving up their money to buy an electric cooker. She is a woman who is living in a rather old-fashioned house. At present all she has to cook on are two gas rings—a very expensive and a difficult way of cooking. She saved up the money to buy an electric cooker on the assumption that it would bear only the lower rate of tax. Now she finds that the cost of the cooker is going to be more than the saving on her husband's Income Tax in a whole year and she has not got that in her hand at the moment. Therefore, she is faced with the possibility of cancelling the order for her electric cooker, unless the Chancellor cuts cookers out of his list. I said to her "You have such an old-fashioned form of cooking; why do you not go to the council and, telling them about this old-fashioned system of cooking, get an alternative system by hiring an electric cooker." If the Chancellor does no' make the change that I am suggesting I will advise all women who have old-fashioned cookers or only gas rings to hire cookers from the local authority, because they would be able to do that as an alternative form of cooking. Thus nothing will be saved in the long run. The council houses are going up and, with hiring instead of buying, nothing will be saved. I suggest that we might win a great deal of favour from hard-worked housewives without suffering any disadvantage. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see fit to reconsider the matter.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Eccles: I think that the Government ought to have printed this Resolution in black type. It really is a confession of bad planning. We should riot have had


this Resolution on the Paper if the Government had planned the consumption of electricity a little more carefully. I am not at all sure that this is not a panic way of dealing with the difficulties into which we have fallen. I reserve my judgment whether we should take action until we have heard what the Financial Secretary has to say. In passing, I would point out that the Chancellor did me an injustice when, in the course of his Budget speech, he said that nobody in this House had objected to taking the tax off electrical appliances. I objected on the ground that I thought that there was an inflationary situation—not foreseeing the electricity difficulty at all, I fully admit. I objected on the ground that there was too much money about, and I thought it was bad finance to increase the purchasing power in the hands of the people.
The speeches which we have heard on this Resolution from all three hon. Members bring out this point. Has this Resolution been drafted in order to save electricity or to bring in more money? I think that the intention of the Government is merely to help to meet the coal situation. If that is the intention, I doubt very much whether this Resolution will assist. We should need a great many statistics on the consumption of electricity and alternative fuels in order to know whether the exceptions which are not to be heavily taxed are big consumers or not. We should want to know whether it is intelligent, for instance, to except lighting and wireless appliances. How much do they consume of the total amount? Is it not just as important to discourage people from having too many lamps in a room as it is to discourage the constituent of the hon. Lady for Epping (Mrs. Manning) from having an electric cooker? I rather think that the electric cooker is more important.
Supposing the intention is to save electricity, then the obvious thing would be to take off the tax altogether in the case of every new installation which could be proved would consume less than that which was being scrapped. Instead of that, the effect of this Resolution will be to make it less easy to substitute the fuel-saving devices for the old-fashioned and expensive devices now installed in some houses. It is not possible to see that any logical or scientific thinking has been put into this Resolution.

Mr. Harold Davies: That is not true. We have not got the generating plant, as the hon. Member ought to know.

Mr. Eccles: I was coming to that. I disagreed with an hon. Member when he said that the turning over from solid fuel to electricity was, in all cases, an advantage, for the very reason which the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) pointed out. There are certain areas where the generating plant is already under strain, and there it is to our advantage to continue to use alternative forms of fuel, but there is no sign that that has been worked out scientifically. I think it is correct to say that where I live in Wiltshire the load is not fully taken up. Nobody minds if a farmer instals electricity. If he can get the connection, there is no objection from the point of view of supply.
At least I never heard of any objection being made. If that is so, why not encourage it. Therefore the real question the Financial Secretary has to answer is: Is this designed simply to save electricity? If it is, will he give us the statistics of the consumption of electricity on these articles which he is penalising against those which he is exempting, and can we know on what scientific basis this schedule has been drawn up? If the House should find, as I think is more than likely, that this really has not been thought out at all, in relation to the saving of electricity, either from the point of view of installation in new houses, or from the point of view of substituting an appliance which consumes less than the one which is to be scrapped, then the House should not pass the Resolution.

Mrs. Braddock: I should like to follow the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning), but to deal with the matter from a different point of view. It is estimated that the increased cost of an ordinary electric cooker on account of tax will be about £14. The present rates of hire purchase are insufficient to meet the increased cost, and some alternative charge on the rate of hire purchase will have to be applied to those people who obtain electric cookers. It will make it particularly difficult for local authorities to differentiate between those purchasing cookers under hire purchase before the Purchase Tax came on, and those purchasing cookers after the additional £14 has been imposed. There


will therefore be difficulties in relation to the administrative details. The cooker is an essential part of life. It is not a luxury, but an essential, and this tax will make it most difficult for those who have to acquire new cooking apparatus in areas where the local authority is able to change over houses from gas to electricity. In Liverpool there are a great many people, and in the country there are hundreds and perhaps thousands, who have already paid deposits to have electricity installed. They are without cooking apparatus at all because the gas has been cut off pending the electrical installation and they simply must change over from gas to electricity because the process of changing over is already in operation. In those circumstances the poorer sections of the people will feel the imposition of this tax, in relation to the rest of the articles which we might consider to be luxury articles. There is a case to be made out for withdrawing this tax on electric and gas cookers.

Sir S. Reed: I should like to support the appeal made to the Financial Secretary to give further consideration to this matter, because it seems to me that there is no answer to the argument that a cooking stove is an essential part of the equipment of any house, whether it he a new house, a bombed-out house or any other house. But I should not like it to go forth from this. House that the electric stove is the most economical means of using fuel, for that is very far from the case. The highest possible thermal efficiency which can be obtained by an electrical station is 33 per cent., the highest thermal efficiency in any modern station is I believe less than 30 per cent. and the average for the Kingdom must be very much less. The highest efficiency in the heat storage cooker is 35 per cent. If the Government wish to save fuel they should consider even giving away the latest stoves using solid fuel in order to economise.

Mr. Renton: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt? Has he overlooked the fact that many power stations use a vast quantity of slack coal which cannot be served to domestic consumers, and also that some power stations—I believe not so much recently, but frequently in the past—used coal which had been partly processed before going to the power stations?

Sir S. Reed: That is true, particularly on the North-East coast of England, where they use slack, and in Swansea, where they use anthracite duff, but it has been argued that 9 cwt. coal gassified, taking into account all residuals, is equal to 18 cwt. used for electricity for cooking purposes. These things ought to be scientifically tested. I put a Question down to the Minister of Fuel and Power and he said that they did not know. I have another Question that there should be a scientific inquiry into the matter That does not affect the general proposition, that a stove is an essential part of the equipment of the house, and that the revival of the tax will be a very heavy burden on considerable numbers of the community Therefore, if it is practicable, will the Financial Secretary give favourable consideration to the Resolution that has been put forward?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I agree wholeheartedly with a great deal that has been said in the course of this Debate on this Resolution, and I have no reply to make to many of the observations. Quite obviously, electric cooking is much cleaner, and it is a modern method of heating and lighting as well. The policy of the Government and of all Governments has been to foster as far as they could the introduction of these labour saving appliances into the home, and the record of this Government, as the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) pointed out, has been to foster as far as it could the sale of these appliances since it first came into office.
In the first Budget that my right hon. Friend introduced in 1945, in the Finance (No. 2) Act and in the Act which we passed last year, Purchase Tax was taken off items of this kind, and today we are making what all of us believe to be a retrograde step in that we are reimposing a tax on some of the things he relieved of Purchase Tax in his first Budget. May I say in parenthesis that I believe that hair dryers, to which the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) referred, are used not only by ladies but by men too. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not by the Chancellor."] I can assure the House that no sex discrimination is intended, and in proof of that I would point out that in another Resolution we are putting a tax on razor strops of 33⅓ per cent. which is no less than the 33⅓ per cent. which is being put on hair


dryers even if, as some hon. Members appear to believe, they are used only by women. The use of the word "domestic" is one, which, we are informed, covers the kind of appliances we have in mind, and it has worked well up to now.
9.45 p.m.
The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) was one of the few, he may have been the only one, who voiced the view that we should not take the Purchase Tax off these appliances as soon as we did. We have to admit, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor admitted quite openly when he introduced the Budget, that we were too optimistic, and took off the Purchase Tax before we should if we had been more cautious and wiser. There is no doubt that during the last 18 months or two years the sale of these appliances has gone up by leaps and bounds, and there is no doubt that the sale of so many, and their use at this juncture, has been one of the causes which led to the difficulties we experienced during the winter, when the load had to be shed almost from hour to hour, and certainly from day to day in most areas.
We are not here out for revenue. It is true that this will bring in a certain amount of revenue, but, principally, what we want to do if we can is to slow down the sale of these modern appliances, at any rate for the time being, until more plant has been installed and more generating stations have been built. The gain from the tax will be £13 million this year and £18 million in a full year, and the loss on the concessions listed in the table is £2 million this year and £2,500,000 in a full year. Therefore, the net gain to the Exchequer is this year £11 million and in a full year £15,500,000. As I say, we are not looking at the revenue, but at the situation and, much against my right hon. Friend's will, but nevertheless bowing to what he feels are the inevitable circumstances of the coming months, we feel that the Purchase Tax should go on in order to slow down the wholesale purchase of these appliances if we can.

Mrs. Manning: Could the right hon. Gentleman answer a short question? The Treasury will not be able to stop the use of these appliances in council houses. If they reckon up the small number which

will be affected outside council houses, will the small number of cases be effective?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Of course it is quite impossible for me to say just what the effect will be in the direction visualised by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning). It is true, and I think we all welcome it, that the houses being built will be wired for electricity, and generating stations are being built, but cookers and other electrical appliances, radiators and so on, cannot be installed, or if installed cannot he used, as early as we had hoped they could be used. A lot of these appliances will be installed and sold, and that we cannot prevent. All we can do by putting on the tax is to ensure that they will not be sold so easily and readily as otherwise, until we have sufficient electrical generating stations to supply the whole need of the urban and rural populations. The only reply I can give to the House is that the Purchase Tax on these appliances is there for that reason, and no other. That being so, until the situation improves, it appears to be reasonable and necessary that the Purchase Tax on these appliances should continue in force.

Mr. Stanley Prescott: The Financial Secretary said that the Government had been too optimistic in their policy of fostering the supply of electrical appliances. I agree that the Government were far too optimistic. They were too optimistic about the thermal, mental and physical efficiency of the Minister of Fuel and Power. The reason for the reintroduction of this tax is to decrease the consumption of electricity. Even on that basis I have some severe criticism to make of this Resolution. May I put this question to the Financial Secretary? Let us assume that I am going into a new flat with my wife. I can, if I have the money—which I have not—buy an electric clock, an electric blanket, an electric warming pan, I can buy for my wife an electric hair-drying machine. I can buy an electric sunray lamp, and I am reminded that I can buy an electric lawnmower, though that would not be much use in a flat. All these I can buy without any increase in the Purchase Tax. The one thing which I shall need above all others, an electric cooking stove, I cannot buy without paying increased Purchase Tax. Surely, that is ridiculous, even on the assumption, which for the moment I


accept, that it is necessary to limit the consumption of electricity, and that that is the real purpose for the introduction of this Resolution.
Surely, the way to limit the consumption of electricity is to cut out non-essential things which consume electricity. All the appliances I have mentioned are less essential than a cooking stove. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but surely that must be so? The main appliance one needs in a flat or a house is a cooking stove. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that there should be no increased Purchase Tax in respect of electric cooking stoves or gas stoves, that they should be excluded from the terms of this Resolution. If necessary, some of the items which are excluded should be included to counterbalance that change. This is a most invidious Resolution, and it sets about its object in entirely the wrong way. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) said, this Resolution should really be printed in black, for it is a prime example of wrong planning. While the President of the Board of Trade was fostering the manufacture of all these electrical appliances, the Minister of Fuel and Power was quite incapable of providing the current necessary to run them. Apparently it had not been brought to the notice of His Majesty's Government that current would be necessary to run this apparatus.
I would ask the Financial Secretary one question. I am informed that not only as a result of this reintroduction of Purchase Tax, but also for another reason, many firms now manufacturing electrical appliances will have to close down. I am informed that all facilities for the supply of raw materials and other matters are to be withdrawn from them. Is that so? To what extent will this Resolution affect the continuance of firms in the electrical industry? If it be necessary to limit the consumption of electricity, and if putting an increased Purchase Tax on certain electrical appliances will effect that result, is it not possible, even on that basis, to refrain from exempting things which are not essential, and to exempt appliances which are essential, for example, cooking stoves? I do ask that consideration should be given to that matter, and in conclusion I would, nicely and kindly, say again what a pity it is that the Government are not better at planning, for if they were, we should not have this Resolution.

Mr. Mikardo: I am sorry to say, and I hope I may say so without offence, that I think that the Financial Secretary completely missed the point of the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Bramall) and the two hon. Ladies who spoke from this side. My right hon. Friend has said the purpose of this Resolution is not to obtain revenue but to decrease the demand for electricity and gas. It is quite clear that, in so far as one is using taxation, as in this case, to decrease the demands upon electricity and gas, in so far as one is using taxation to influence demands, the influence is exerted only in the case of commodities that are in an elastic demand, and this is a case of an inelastic demand. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexley pointed out that it does not matter what we do about taxation. Every woman must have a stove on which to cook, and no woman wants more than one stove on which to cook, and, so far as I am aware, one cannot cook one dinner on two stoves, and so consumption of fuel will not be affected in any way by measures—

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It may well be that I did not make this quite clear—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—but surely the real core of this trouble is not whether we are using more or less coal. The point is we have not got the generating and the power stations to provide enough electricity for those who are using it.

Mr. Mikardo: But, surely, we are not here discussing the question of whether we are trying to get people to leave coal stoves which, on the whole, are a minority, to use gas stoves or electricity stoves, since the great majority of all cooking is done on gas or electric stoves and since the Resolution does not discriminate, it does not affect the transfer to gas or electric cooking or vice versa. The important point, it seems to me, is that what we are doing is furthering the continuance in use of obsolescent and inefficient cookers which whether they be worked by gas or electricity or coal, are using more fuel to cook the same dinner than a modern and efficient stove. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexley pleaded on behalf of those who are just setting up homes for the first time; but I would go further, and I would say that a case for encouraging the use of the most efficient cooking equipment, of whatever type, in order to economise fuel is on all fours with the case


the Chancellor put forward for having a lower rate of taxation on undistributed as compared with distributed profits in business, in order to induce people to get new and modern and more efficient equipment.
What we do not always realise is that the great majority of the factories in this country are the kitchens of the country. There are more workshops which are kitchens than there are of any other forms of workshop in the country, and the occupation with the greatest numbers in it is the occupation of housewife. We get this enormous bulk of work done in the kitchen "workshops" with a layout and equipment we should be horrified to use in any other form of workshop. I do not see how we can encourage the use of electricity in factories, and discourage it in the homes. It seems to me that the case put up by my hon. Friend is quite unanswerable. It seems to me that, by the reimposition of the Purchase Tax on this apparatus, the Government are doing their best to ensure that it shall be inefficient. There is a clear case for including these standard parts, because they are supremely the inelastic demand commodities, in the exemptions.

10.0 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: From the discussion so far, it is quite clear that one of the chief reasons why the Government are taking this step is to cover up what has happened in another Department—the Ministry of Fuel and Power. I am extremely sorry to see that there is no representative of that Ministry on the Front Bench opposite at the moment, and it seems to me that, when this whole question comes down to a problem of the consumption of power, it is most regrettable that the Front Bench should contain no one who can answer for that Department. We are told by the Government, in the words of the Financial Secretary, that they have a policy to foster the introduction of labour-saving devices. As soon as they introduce that policy, they appear to reverse it, and who, above all, is responsible for the introduction of that policy but Members of the Front Bench opposite? Their new policy is designed to ensure that all cooking and other domestic appliances shall be either gas or electric.
What will be the effect of that on the average citizen of this country who is taking over a council house, as a result of the new Government policy? Does the

Financial Secretary realise, and can he tell the House, what is to be the effect, in terms of rent payable by the occupiers to the local authority of these council houses, of this increased taxation? Can he indicate what penalty is now to be paid by the average ex-Serviceman trying to get a council house, as a result of this complete reversal of Government policy? That is a matter on which we have heard nothing from anyone on the Government Front Bench.
Further, I cannot understand, when we hear these requests from the Financial Secretary, who tells us how necessary it is to curtail our consumption of power, why according to the Table which is now before us, we are allowed to use lawn mowers. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I apologise; perhaps I have read it wrong. If the Financial Secretary says I am wrong, I shall be only too glad for the right hon. Gentleman to correct me, but, if I am right, it does seem to me to be an extraordinary contradiction that we should be entitled to use lawn mowers and not cooking stoves. If I am wrong, I am quite prepared to give way to the Financial Secretary.
I think I am right in saying that the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) said that the increase on the average gas cooker would be about £14. But that is not the whole story. In addition to that, there is the further fact that we know that these essential domestic appliances cannot be delivered in the normal course of trade, and have to be sent by passenger train. We also know that before a family can move into a local council house, they need to have a cooker. If they had to wait for the cooker for a month or six weeks, which is the normal time for delivery, they would be unable to move in as quickly as they otherwise could. In order to get over the difficulty, many of them pay the carriage charges themselves. But the carriage charges are added to the cost price of the cooker, and the Purchase Tax is payable on the total amount. That seems to me to be an absurd state of affairs. Because of our shortage of wagons, of transport and of this, that and the other, the carriage charge is added to the bill in the case of these necessities, while, at the same time, if anyone has a lawn mower, he is allowed to use it. I feel that, unless the Financial Secretary can produce a very convincing answer, we should vote against this Resolution.

Mr. Gibson: I wish to support the plea made to the Financial Secretary to exclude the proposed increase in the Purchase Tax on cookers. I do not wish to go over the arguments used by other hon. Members, but there is one which has not yet been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) said that every one of a large number of houses being built all over the country will contain a cooker of some sort—either electric or gas. If the Purchase Tax at 66⅔ per cent. is placed on those cookers, it means that every local authority in the country will be put to an additional expense, which may vary from anything between £8 and £12 a house, in connection with their housing programme. That will be a serious charge on local authorities, and one which may have some effect in certain districts in reducing the pressure for the completion of houses. It will not have that effect in London and in most of the large cities, but all the local authorities will have to pay.
I am quite sure that the Government have no intention of deliberately doing anything to hamper the housing programme throughout the country. I appeal to the Financial Secretary to consult the Chancellor as to whether the Purchase Tax cannot be reduced on cookers placed in houses where, in any case, they have to go. Even if the tax is paid, there is no saving of fuel or of electricity. Cooking facilities must be provided, and, that being so, this is an absurd and quite unnecessary tax on housing authorities up and down the country. As to the rest of the proposals in the Resolution, I agree with them. It is worth while pointing out that when the Chancellor referred to this in his Budget speech, there was almost unanimous agreement that he was right. That being so, I am a little surprised to hear some of the opinions of certain hon. Members opposite. On this question of cookers, however, we are obviously unanimous, though probably for different reasons. I am anxious that the tax should not be imposed on cookers so that there may be no hindrance put in the way of the very large housing programme which the Government have under way at the present moment.

Mr. Henry Strauss: The hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Bramall) and the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning)

clearly and rightly confined the plea they made to the case of cookers, and that has been general in the speeches which have followed. My remarks will also be limited to the question of cookers. That being the case, I cannot see that the Financial Secretary has given any answer of any kind to the pleas that have been made, whether by Members on his own side of the House or by Members on this side. What does he think will be the effect of this Resolution as applied to cookers? I think the most astonishing feature of this Debate, apart from the inadequacy of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, is the absence from the Treasury Bench of representatives of the Ministry of Fuel and Power and of the Ministry of Health. Is it the object, as it is undoubtedly the effect, of this Resoluion, to put up the cost of housing, or has it escaped the notice of the Treasury that a house requires a cooker? Or is it, perhaps, their intention besides stopping the sale of cookers to stop the erection of such few houses as might go up?
Assuming for the moment that they desire some houses to be built, and that they desire those houses that are built to have cookers, may I ask them what cookers they desire those houses to have? Hitherto, we have imagined that, on the whole, they wished houses to have either gas or electric cookers. Under this Resolution, if they have either, the price of the houses will go up. Does the Financial Secretary realise that fact? If so, does he think it right? What good object does he think he is achieving by this Resolution? As has been pointed out by several hon. Members, people do not buy gas or electric cookers for the fun of the thing. They buy to cook. I make that elementary statement, not because I think any back bench Member does not appreciate it, but because I do not think it has yet penetrated to the Government Front Bench. Not the least consciousness of that fact was betrayed by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in his answer to the speech of the hon. Member for Epping, to give only one example.
I shall not labour that point, but I will make one more point which I think is important. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech spoke of the time when he removed the Purchase Tax from these articles and said that all of us had been wrong. That is completely


untrue. There was nothing wrong about that removal at all, except that the Government either did not realise that the sale of electrical apparatus would be followed by the consumption of current—and that may be a measure of their planning ability—or they were too incompetent to provide the necessary fuel and power. But to pretend that that was a fault in which the whole of the House shared is to say that which is quite demonstrably untrue.

Mr. Mikardo: The hon. and learned Gentleman was not here.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Strauss: I read the Debates, even if I was not here. I do not think the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo), who has just interrupted me, will dispute what I am saying, namely that there was nothing wrong whatsoever in removing the Purchase Tax from those articles. The only fault was in not realising the consequences and in not providing the necessary fuel and power. I hope that, unless the Government produce some answer to the points which have been raised from every quarter of the House, we shall divide on this Resolution. I came into the House with a perfectly open mind in regard to this Resolution. I thought it looked bad on the face of it, but I felt it was only fair to assume of the Treasury that they would not have put forward this Resolution unless they had an argument of some kind with which to support it. We have now had, from every quarter of the House, a devastating attack on this Duty. It has been proved that the main effect it will have is, not in any way to alter the demands for the use of this apparatus, but merely to alter, as far as I can see, the cost of housing. In those circumstances, and in view of the fact that the Treasury have produced no reply of any kind, I hope that the House, supported by all the hon. Members who have spoken, will divide against this Resolution.

10.15 p.m.

Mrs. Castle: As I hope the Financial Secretary will reconsider this question, and as there are other items of electrical equipment as well as cookers to which the same arguments apply, I should like to point out to my right hon. Friend the importance of considering this question in relation to a wider range of

articles. We have been assured by the Financial Secretary that the purpose of this Resolution is not to raise revenue, but to economise in fuel consumption. Therefore, we must examine how far it achieves that end. In considering the question of fuel consumption, two aspects have to be borne in mind, first, the need for an overall reduction in the consumption of gas and electricity; and second, the need for watching our old enemy, the peak load of electricity. I suggest to the Financial Secretary that in this rather panicky mood, by retreating from the steps forward that were taken last year, he is, in fact, not achieving his end. The effect of this Resolution is not to tax fuel consumption at all, but to tax domestic convenience, and the two, fortunately for us, are by no means synonymous. The help that we can give to the housewife consists of substituting one form of appliance for another, which is also more economical in the use of fuel.
I support completely everything that has been said about cookers, but I want my right hon. Friend to add something to his list of considerations. I should not like the Financial Secretary to think that cookers are the only item to which this argument applies. There is also the question of electric irons. The problem that faces the housewife today is, as we all know, one of great difficulty and inconvenience. Before the Financial Secretary places the luxury or the necessity of electric irons outside the scope of the ordinary housewife, I urge him to consider very carefully the fact that the housewife is today forced increasingly to do her own laundry at home. I do not know whether or not my right hon. Friend is in the habit of ironing his own shirts. If he is, I ask him this question: If he has not got an electric iron, what does he use instead? [HON. MEMBERS: "He sleeps on them."] When he comes to the ironing stage of his laundry, if he has not an electric iron he will find that he has to take a flat iron, turn on the gas and put the flat iron on the gas to heat it up, than which there is no more uneconomical use of fuel consumption.
I therefore urge the right hon. Gentleman to realise that just as, so far as cookers are concerned, he has to appreciate that certain jobs have to be done in the home, and that we are helping our national drive for both fuel economy and domestic


efficiency if we enable them to be done with the best possible apparatus, I also ask him to remember that the real damage that has been done over the past year in regard to fuel has been done by the widespread use of an increased number of electric fires. They are the source of the danger to the peak load, they are the cause of the increased fuel consumption. You can put an electric fire in every room in the house eventually, if you have the money and the fires, but nobody in his senses will put an electric cooker and an electric iron in every room in the house; one is enough. We have also to remember that whereas the electric fire goes on at the danger moment of the peak load, at eight o'clock in the morning when we get out of bed, there are other items of electrical equipment which are used with great convenience not at the peak load. The electric iron is used largely in the evening, and that is not the moment of danger, electrically, from the point of view of the generating stations.
I beg the Financial Secretary not to panic in this matter. The women have earned the right to these items of increased convenience, and I ask him to regard them all individually from the practical point of view as to whether or not they will inconvenience the main economy drive in fuel or whether they are not just a sop to a panic opinion which has been developing on this question. I urge him to reconsider these items of electrical equipment. He gave us the concession on irons last year, and wiped the whole of the Purchase Tax off. I urge him not to restore the 66⅔ per cent. tax this year on cookers or any other of those items of electrical equipment which do not endanger the peak load but only substitute a more efficient form of fuel consumption for an inefficient one.

Mr. Nicholson: I am profoundly sorry for the Financial Secretary; he is a victim of his own honesty. He is accused on all sides of the House of having made no adequate defence of this Resolution, and he made no adequate defence because he is an honest man and knows as well as any of us that there is no adequate defence. The only possible defence he could make is a confession of failure on behalf of his colleagues. Confession, though good for the soul, is bad for the reputation, and I must say I extend to him my full sympathy. I hope he has realised by now that the feeling of the

House is very strongly against him. He said in one breath that this tax is not being imposed for revenue purposes, and in the next that it would incidentally raise £15,500,000 in a full year. By whom will that £15,500,000 be paid? Not by people who will pay it for fun, not by people with a large stake in our national economy; it will be paid by people who have to buy these installations because they are forced to do so. If it acts like that, I am sure it is a wrong form of taxation.
I would like to take a sample case. Let us consider a woman, living in a house with a coal range, who wishes to buy an electric ring. She may have a young baby needing hot food at regular intervals during the day. For the life of me I cannot see why she should not be encouraged to buy an electric or gas ring rather than have to light a coal fire to provide the baby with hot food. Such examples can be multiplied many times in the incidence of this tax. I am sure that it is a mistake, and I hope the Financial 'Secretary will go back to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor and explain to him that on all sides of the House, without regard to party affiliations, we hope he will make some concession and will not put his own Government in the ridiculous position of having forced £15,500,000 out of people who are the least fitted to pay it in buying articles which are absolute necessities.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I can speak again only by leave of the House. I do not know how long the House desires this Debate to continue but if I can briefly reply—

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I object to the right hon. Gentleman being heard.

Mrs. Ridealgh: In his three Budgets, the Chancellor, in dealing with direct taxation, gave due regard to the capacity of the individual to pay. It is to be regretted that he did not aproach the question of Purchase Tax with the same attitude of mind, especially in relation to cookers, about which we have heard so much tonight, and also irons, cleaners, and electric washers. I realise that the restriction of the consumption of fuel is very necessary, but there are other ways of doing it. The Minister of Fuel and Power during the war controlled every installation of electric and gas equipment


in houses. I understand that he could prevent the installation of alternative methods of cooking or heating, and I think in this case something of a similar nature might be done. At least a restriction could be put on the number of electric articles placed upon the home market. Great stress has been laid on the importance of cookers. I should like to emphasise, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), the need for irons. I knew a young couple who had been married only a few months and were trying to get flat irons. They were unable to buy them and they mentioned the matter to me. I told them that I had two rusty old flat irons stored away in a cupboard. They were very glad to get them. People cannot get flat irons today and so are compelled to use electric and gas irons. Today our housewives have to do much more washing than they had to do in the past. Articles do not came back from the laundry in as good condition as when they are washed at home and with more washing being done at home, a great deal more ironing must be done. Reference has been made to the way in which our women have to work. We should not forget that they also have to stand in queues, much of their time being taken up in that way. They are paying a high price for food and have to spend a great deal of time in cooking it as well as in mending and renovating. The least we can do is to relieve the housewife as much as possible from those jobs which tax her physical strength. I ask the Chancellor, therefore, to consider not only cookers but also irons, washers, cleaners and all things of a like nature which go to lighten the burden of the housewife. They have had six or seven years of hard toil and it is about time that their work was appreciated.

10.30 p.m.

Lieut. Commander Braithwaite: May I express the hope that the Financial Secretary will be heard in this Debate? My only reason for objecting a few moments ago to his intervention was the somewhat sinister omen of the return to the Chamber of the Patronage Secretary, who is not, I hope, going to make the kind of speech we heard from him a little earlier. The Financial Secretary finds himself surrounded by a House which unanimously takes a view con-

trary to that of the Government. This is one of the occasions when Private Members on all benches should impress their wishes quite firmly on the Executive. No speech has been made in support of the attitude taken up by the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think that is at all surprising. He told us, with candour, that he had nothing to say in reply to the speeches of his hon. friends. He added that this was a reactionary or retrograde Resolution and that it was almost entirely a matter of saving electricity. I am sorry that he is not supported on the Front Bench by some of the Ministers who are interested in this matter. I think that the Minister of Fuel and Power might have been with us. I understand that there is no prize fight of any importance taking place. I think we might have had a representative of the Ministry of Health. We have, however, only succeeded in attracting the Minister in charge of the police and the Minister of Pensions, neither of whom has any direct interest in this matter. I agree that the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the President of the Board of Trade, whose absence in Geneva has emboldened her, has intervened on two occasions today and has said that this is a panic step. We are suffering now from shilly-shally in this matter. For the duty to be removed in one Budget only to be reimposed in the next, puts the greatest handicap on those who are anxious to obtain these materials.
I find myself in complete agreement with the hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Bramall), who initiated this discussion. He said he thought it hard on people who have ordered a cooker, to find themselves confronted with a delayed delivery just on the wrong side of the line when this tax has been reimposed, and who have to pay Purchase Tax at the time of delivery. I support the suggestion that there should be a minor concession, and that the operation of this tax should date from the time of the order. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is reconsidering this whole matter. I thought I detected him, just now, in close consultation with some of his officials, as if the matter needed some sort of consideration, and I hope I am not being too optimistic. It really is time that the House asserted itself. This has been an appalling day—no smoking to begin with, and now no cooking. Where are we going? We are marching steadily, under


Socialism, back to the Middle Ages, and to a state of things in which there will be no conveniences at all. First of all, the right hon. Gentleman tells us that the policy of His Majesty's Government is to encourage the use of labour-saving devices; then the Government switch off the juice as soon as the labour-saving devices are installed. I hope this matter is going to be reconsidered. I was rather impressed, on my way to the House yesterday, when I was confronted with a large poster which told me that we were "up against it." We have known that ever since the election of the present Government to power. When I saw an equally impressive poster. "Work or Want," I little thought that as the result of today's discussion the Government are going to say to the housewives of this country, "Work and Want."

Mr. Marlowe: There seems to be such a division between the Front Bench opposite and those who nominally support them that I am beginning to feel there must have been some meeting upstairs today. But I am convinced that is not so, because I have not seen anything about it in the "Evening Standard." The position, as I understand it, is that everyone who is supposed to be supporting the Government is opposed to this Resolution. Some hon. Members, particularly the hon. Lady the junior Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), have dealt at length with the way in which the Financial Secretary was expected to wash his shirt. But I would remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman has an advantage over the rest of us in that, when he wants his shirt to be ironed, he has only to put it on the Despatch Box and get the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a speech When. the right hon. Gentleman has banged the box enough, the shirt will be ironed—[Interruption]. What I think the Financial Secretary has to deal with is the charge made against him—which I entirely support, of introducing a panic Measure. The hon. and learned Member for the combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss), with a sort of touching simplicity, and in the belief that he was still living in the past and that cookers were still used for cooking, forgot that under Socialist planning, neither the food comes in nor the electricity comes on
I must say I cannot help feeling that there is a lack of reality about this dis-

cussion. We have arrived at the stage where the Budget is used as an economic weapon, but one is in the difficult position of not knowing how far one is in Order in discussing this subject. We are told that this is not a matter of increasing revenue, but the House is being asked to pass a Measure as a result of which it is said we shall save some fuel. How do we know that this will save any fuel? I should like to know, but I do not think that I should be in Order in pursuing that matter any farther. We are in the absurd position of not knowing whether this tax is justified. I submit that the only person who can really tell us about that is the Minister of Fuel and Power, and he is not here to-night. Is this Measure going to save fuel, or is it not? That is supposed to be the purpose. I do not think that the Chancellor has heard one speech tonight supporting him in this matter, and I ask him to think again over this Resolution and realise that he has taken a step which has the unanimous disapproval of the House. I ask him to withdraw this Resolution.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I think there is agreement on all sides of the House that the general intention of the Government to try to cut down the amount of electrical apparatus likely to absorb electricity, which is in short supply is right arid proper. But I ask if this list of items is wisely framed. From the speeches on both sides, I should say that that is not the case. The Financial Secretary has made it clear that this Measure is not designed to bring in revenue, but rather to save electrical companies from possible breakdown. If so, I ask why gas equipment is included in the list. Although we are short of gas at times, the gas companies are not "up against it" as are the electrical companies. We are told by the Financial Secretary that this Resolution is designed to save electricity, and if so, I cannot see why gas apparatus is included in the list. Gramophones and player-pianos, which are sometimes very large things, can use current greatly in excess of the domestic electric irons which the hon. Lady referred to just now. People put in electric irons of the latest variety that plug in to the light, and come into the category of light appliances. Gramophones and player-pianos might consume a great deal of electricity. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

Major Cecil Poole: Very much less.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I have looked at the Finance Acts of 1940 and 1942 referred to in this Resolution and they do seem to exclude certain heavy items of electrical appliances which ought to be within the range of Purchase Tax, having regard to what the Financial Secretary said on the saving of electricity. There is no mention here, for example, of electric motors, domestic and commercial. There is nothing about heavy electric machinery for large houses and hotels, lifts, for example. That is the kind of thing the Government ought to direct their attention to in framing this list and it is a great pity to bring before the House an incomplete list which has not been wisely framed from everybody's point of view and try to force it through without adequate consideration. I beg the Government to give an indication that they will recast the whole list for the Finance Bill and make it possible to justify all items.

Mr. Stanley: I hope that one of the Ministers will be able to make some pronouncement on behalf of the Government at the end of a Debate which has covered a wide range but has been distinguished by what is almost unanimity in criticism of the present proposals. I agree that we are in some difficulty. The Amendment on the Order Paper has not been selected and therefore we are left considering electrical appliances as a whole and are unable, if it comes to a Division, to distinguish, as I should like to do, say, between electric fires and electric cookers. It does not seem to me that the same arguments apply to both. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) was, I thought, quite right when he selected electric cookers as a type of commodity with a wholly inelastic range of demand which is really uninfluenced by price considerations and I am very doubtful whether in fact the tax which we are told—this time quite categorically—has no object but that of preventing the manufacture and purchase of these articles will be successful.
I want to ask the Financial Secretary this question, which seems to me a most important one, with regard to electric stoves. I should like to know what proportion of electric stoves manufactured and sold go into housing schemes under the Government's own control; what pro-

portion goes into ordinary local authority housing schemes assisted and directed by the Government, and what proportion is sold in the open market to people not going into that type of house. I should imagine a very large proportion of electric cookers today are going into municipal building schemes. In so far as that proportion is concerned what is the effect of this tax going to be? If you want to stop the manufacture and sale of electric stoves, cannot you do it simply by telling local authorities that they are not to install electric cookers in their houses?
10.45 p.m.
Simply to put up the price without giving them an order not to install them seems to leave the question of manufacture and distribution exactly as it was. Is there any reason to believe that a local authority that is prepared to make an all-electric house will alter that plan because of the tax? They will simply go on and pay more. If they did not, what is the alternative if the right hon. Gentleman is successful in his tax in preventing local authorities by this increase from installing electric cookers? What does he want them to install? They have got to install some apparatus for cooking and we are surely entitled to know what the Government want in its place. Is it the old-fashioned coal range? Is it something which is more economical in fuel? In fact, in view of the plans made for two years past upon the production and sale of gas and electric cookers, if you stop their sale, is there any alternative form of cooking stove available in the quantities which we hope will be required for municipal housing?
It seems to me that all these things we are entitled to be told before we pass this Resolution. We have had no detailed justification at all. We have just been told that this proposal is intended to prevent the sale of electric appliances but we have had no explanation of how it is to achieve that end and if it achieves that end, what people are to have instead. It is a thoroughly unsatisfactory state in which the matter is left now and I confess, although I should have much preferred to deal with a particular Amendment, sooner than allow the Resolution to pass I shall vote against it as a whole, even though as far as electric appliances are concerned I think they might well have been brought within the ambit of the original discussion.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 88.

Division No. 134.]
AYES
[10.48 p.m


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Price, M. Philips


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Pritt, D. N.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Proctor, W. T


Alpass, J. H.
Guy, W. H.
Pryde, D. J.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Pursey, Cmdr, H


Attewell, H. C.
Hale, Leslie
Randall, H. E


Austin, H. Lewis
Hall, W. G
Ranger, J.


Awbery, S. S.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Rankin, J.


Bacon, Miss A.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Baird, J.
Hardy, E. A.
Rhodes, H.


Barton, C.
Haworth, J.
Richards, R.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Robens, A.


Benson, G.
Herbison, Miss M.
Rogers, G H. R.


Berry, H.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Beswick, F.
Hobson, C. R.
Royle, C.


Blackburn, A. R.
House, G.
Sargood, R.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hoy, J.
Scollan, T.


Blyton, W. R.
Hubbard, T.
Shackleton, E. A [...]


Boardman, H.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Sharp, Granville


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Shurmer, P.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Irving, W. J.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Janner, B.
Simmons, C. J.


Brown, George (Belper)
Jay, D. P. T.
Skeffington, A. M.


Brown, T. J (Ince)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Skeffington-Lodge, T C


Buchanan, G.
John, W.
Skinnard, F. W.


Burden, T. W.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Burke, W. A.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Callaghan, James
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Solley, L. J.


Carmichael, James
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Soskice, Maj. Sir F


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Keenan, W.
Sparks, J. A.


Chamberlain, R. A
Kenyon, C
Stamford, W.


Champion, A. J
Lang, G.
Steele, T.


Cobb, F. A.
Lavers, S.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Cocks, F. S.
Leonard, W.
Stross, Dr. B.


Collick, P.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Stubbs, A. E.


Collindridge, F
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Swingler, S.


Collins, V. J.
Logan, D. G.
Sylvester, G. O.


Colman, Miss G. M
Longden, F.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Comyns, Dr. [...]
Lyne, A. W
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cooper, Wing-Cmdr. G
McAdam, W
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Corvedale, Viscount
Mack, J. D
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Grossman, R H. S
McKay, J. (WalIsend)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Daggar, G.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N W.)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
McKinlay, A. S.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Tiffany, S.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McLeavy, F
Timmons, J


Deer, G.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Titterington, M[...]


Delargy, H. [...]
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Tolley, L.


Diamond, J
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Ungoed-Thomas, L


Dobbie, W.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Usborne, Henry


Driberg, T. E. N
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Dumpleton, C. W
Medland, H. M.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Dye, S
Middleton, Mrs. L
Watkins, T. E.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mikardo, Ian.
Watson, W. M.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Mitchison, G. R.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Monslow, W
Weitzman, D.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Morgan, Dr. H. B
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Morley, R.
West, D. G.


Ewart, R.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Fairhurst, F.
Moyle, A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Farthing, W. J.
Murray, J. D
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Field, Capt. W. J.
Nally, W.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Wilkins, W. A.




Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Follick, M.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Foot, M. M.
Oldfield, W. H.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Forman, J. C.
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, W. R (Heston)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Paget, R. T.
Willis, E.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wills, Mrs. E. A


Gibbins, J.
Palmer, A. M F
Wise, Major F. J


Gibson, C. W.
Pargiter, G A

Woodburn, A.


Gilzean, A.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Woods, G. S


Gooch, E. G.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Wyatt, W.


Goodrich, H. E.
Pearson, A.
Yates, V. F.


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Piratin, P.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)



Grey, C. F.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grierson, E.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Captain Snow and Mr. Daines.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Grant, Lady
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Grimston, R. V.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Astor, Hon. M.
Hinchingbrocke, Viscount
Ponsonby, Col. C. E


Baldwin, A. E
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Prescott, Stanley


Barlow, Sir J
Hope, Lord J.
Price-White, Lt-Col. D


Baxter, A. B.
Howard, Hon A.
Prior-Palmer, Brig O


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Hurd, A.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Carson, E.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Renton, D.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S
Jennings, R.
Roberts, Maj P. G. (Ecclesall)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Keeling, E. H.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Kingsmill, Lt.-Cot. W. H
Scott, Lord W


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Spence, H. R.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U (Ludlow)
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H F C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Cuthbert, W. N.
MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R A. F


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Vane, W. M. F.


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R
Ward, Hon. G. R


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
MacLeod, J.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J


Drayson, G. B.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond)
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Duthie, W. S.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Eccles, D. M.
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Willoughby de Eresby. Lord


Erroll, F. J.
Marlowe, A. A. H
York. C


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Marples, A. E.



Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Mellor, Sir J.



Gage C.
Neven-Spence, Sir B
Mr. Drewe and Mr. Studholme.


Gomme-Duncan, Col [...] C
Nicholson, G



Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PURCHASE TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND REDUCTIONS OF RATES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. Dodds-Parker: There is one small but relatively important point I would like to put to the Financial Secretary on Part II of the Resolution. I will leave alone the first three items. The Chancellor may know why he arranged them in that particular order but I would like to refer to the next five items which form a group. As far as cricket, football, hockey and boxing are concerned, the list is pretty comprehensive, but as far as the last item is concerned:
Rowing boats specially designed as racing boats,
this omits, as is characteristic of Socialist planning, any form of propulsion for the vehicle. Perhaps the Financial Secretary would consider before a later stage, whether oars are included in "rowing boats"? It is not a very big item. A certain amount of highly seasoned timber and a certain limited amount of skilled workmanship are required. Those who have had knowledge of the Chancellor's history from his schooldays onwards are not surprised that he has remembered to

include bats and balls and shinguards—and in particular shinguards.

Mrs. Manning: In the list in Part II the Chancellor has paid a great deal of attention to games played by boys, but there are certain games that are played by girls and I am interested in one of them. I am interested in a game which is played in the girls' schools of the people, the only game that girls alone play, and that is netball. If the Chancellor had thought about the games that girls play, particularly in elementary schools, he would have realised that a sports club in a girls' school should be able to obtain at reduced charges the apparatus necessary for this essential game. I hope very much that when he comes to reconsider this list he will include netball.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: I wish to point out to the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) that netball is not wholly a girls' game, but is played in many boys' clubs. There is a strong argument for its inclusion. I think that possibly there is a little Southern bias in the types of games specified. For example, we have hockey, but not lacrosse, which is very much played in the Midlands. To go further North, there is a game of which I suppose many hon. Members have not heard—shinty. One could almost say that it is the national


game in the Highlands of Scotland. It is similar to hockey and is played with a stick with a loft on both sides. It is sometimes described as "hockey without rules," but it is nothing of the sort. It has rules, and is a very much older game than hockey. I hope that attention will be given to reducing the charges on shinty sticks and balls. Lastly, I suggest that squash rackets and balls should be included. This is a game played very much in schools, and after school age, and here it is not a question of large exports.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Many of us have had occasion in the last year or two to make use of the somewhat ramshackle taxicab, crawling about the streets of London, and I would like to ask the Financial Secretary to consider between now and the introduction of the Finance Bill, some degree of remission of Purchase Tax in respect of taxicabs. There is now an urgent need to replace the old London taxicabs, and make available to the London public and to visitors, whom we want to encourage to come to this country, new taxicabs with modern improvements. I am assured by people in a position to speak with authority on the matter that the London 'cab trade cannot afford to buy new taxicabs with the Purchase Tax of one-third added to the manufacturer's price. In effect, it means that when a taxicab is purchased on hire-purchase arrangements, the cost of the new 'cab will be £1,264, against the prewar price of £550. I hope the Financial Secretary will look into this matter with a view to seeing what concession can be made, a concession which will be of advantage not only to the public of London, but to visitors. We want to encourage them to come here to spend hard currency in the Metropolis.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I wish to raise a point, not on Part II, on which questions have hitherto been raised, but on Part I, which mentions certain filters. On the whole I thought it meant to exempt filters designed to remove bacteria, etc., by mechanical means, but not including filters also employing chemical reaction. But the description contains one word which seems to me to introduce some confusion and doubt. That is the word "suspended." It says:
Domestic water filters designed to remove bacteria and other suspended impurities from drinking water.…

What is the objection to removing an impurity which sinks to the bottom? There must, presumably, be some idea behind these words, but the matter is not by any means self-explanatory. I want to know whether it is really intended that a filter which is designed and calculated to remove all impurities by mechanical means, some of those impurities not being suspended impurities, shall pay a tax. The point is a short one. I think the right hon. Gentleman has grasped it, and that either he or the Solicitor-General will be able to give a reply.

Dr. Barnett Stross: Representing, as I do, a Division where pottery is made, it is natural that I should be grateful for the fact that a reduced rate of tax is now to be charged for certain articles of hollow-ware. There was an anomaly, which we are glad has now been removed. Other classes of goods of this type, which we manufacture, are left out of the scope of this provision, particularly hollow-ware used in hospitals We should be grateful if the Chancellor would consider the whole of this class of goods, and reduce their price by providing that there shall be no Purchase Tax whatever on them. It is a small matter, but is of some consequence to the people who have to use these goods.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: I should like to support the plea that has been put to the Chancellor to cast a benevolent eye on netball and lacrosse, not from the point of view of their well-known effectiveness in improving the figure, but because the Chancellor has seen fit to avoid the difficulties of a tax on gambling on sport. It is obvious that these particular sports are unlikely to be the subject of pools by Littlewoods, or anything like that, and the more these sports are encouraged and made popular, the further away we shall get from betting in too great a degree as it is indulged in by people at the present moment. From that point of view, as well as in relation to boys' and girls' schools, I would like to add a word in support of these sports.

Mr. Eccles: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) and others have said. I had on the Order Paper an Amendment designed to redress what I thought was discrimination against the fair sex, by suggesting to the Chancellor that he should include netball and lacrosse. I would like


the House to do something for girls. I admit that I would do it because I like girls, but as there are some Members who may not be convinced by that simple argument I think it right to state the case for netball. This is a game which is much more popular than is usually supposed. It is played by two teams of seven, on a small, hard court. As the court is small, it can usually be procured in public places and in built-up areas, which is an advantage. As the court is hard, it dries quickly, and that is an advantage in the British climate. How many girls play this game? I am informed by the All-England Netball Association that the clubs affiliated to their membership can count on about one million members, and that million is not the whole story, because there are many teams, I suppose, in Scotland and Wales, for example, which are not affiliated to the All-England Association. The great majority of the players of this game are office or factory workers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Schoolgirls."] And schoolgirls, but all of them, I should say, under the age of thirty, and at an age when they have not very much money. They have to provide themselves with their own personal kit, and beyond that they have to get the gear with which this game is played. What is that gear? There is the ball, which, hon. Members may be surprised to know, is nothing more or less than a small football. Therefore my first and very important question to the Financial Secretary is whether, as the Resolution now stands, a No. 5 size football, when purchased in order to be kicked by a boy, is to be exempt from tax, but, when purchased in order to be handled by a girl, is to pay tax.
The more expensive items of equipment for this game are the posts. The House knows that at the top of these erections are curious contraptions looking like waste paper baskets. The old fashioned kind of post is made of wood and rests upon a projecting base over which the girls often trip and injure themselves. Even in public parks and other places these dangerous erections are still in use, because it costs a great deal of money to replace them with the more modern type of post which rests upon a flat base. The modern type of post costs between £7 and £14 a pair, which includes 33⅓ per cent. Purchase Tax. If the Chancellor will take this tax off, he will not only make it possible to replace a

great many of these dangerous, old-fashioned posts, but will encourage the formation of a very great number of new netball clubs.
I would only say one word on the advantages of this admirable game. It is very important, and I would ask the. hon. Ladies who are present to allow me to make an appeal to hon. Gentlemen, who for the time being at any rate outnumber them so heavily in this House. I put it to hon. Gentlemen, what is it that we really admire in the fair sex? As discriminating connoisseurs, what catches our fancy, what is it that raises our anticipation of pleasure enjoyable beyond anything else—is it not the athletic figure in graceful movement? Is it not the ability to tread a light foot on the dance floor? Nobody denies that netball develops these graces. The players of this game grow in speed, agility and shapeliness. I say to hon. Gentlemen that it is in our own interests to press the Chancellor to make this modest concession. Here we have the manly sport of boxing to be relieved, and the delightful game of cricket is to be exempted, while those who indulge in the sedentary sport of rowing are to be able to buy their boats free of tax. Surely the Chancellor ought to round off his beneficence and, as it were, through a budgetary kiss to the netball players, and show us that he is. as gallant to the girls as he is always mindful of the young men.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. C. Williams: I feel I ought to say one or two words following on what has been said by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) but I really rise on this occasion because I might almost incur the charge from hon. Members opposite of being grossly discourteous to the Chancellor of the Exchequer if I did not take part in the Debate on this Resolution. Having made an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on one of the subjects included in this Resolution, I think it would be wrong of me if I did not thank him most sincerely for including rowing boats. I asked him to do so last year and I have pressed him on other occasions. Therefore I feel that if I failed to thank him I should be discourteous. I feel sure that other hon. Members opposite, in fact everyone who has made proposals to the Chancellor, will try to follow my courtesy and thank


him when they have the chance. As the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker) said, on this matter of rowing boats it seems that the Chancellor got tired when he came to them, because he entirely forgot to put in oars. Earlier, when he was talking about cricket, he went into the most minute detail on things such as bats, balls, gloves, and bails. Now whereas it might be possible to play a game of cricket without bails, not even the Chancellor of the Exchequer with all his ingenuity could make a rowing boat go very far without oars. I think I am entitled to say that we ought to have a real answer from someone on this point before we agree to this Resolution.
I see below the Gangway the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton), who made an appeal to the Chancellor. I am not sure whether if his appeal is refused he would vote against the Resolution but I feel that some of us would support him on the matter of taxicabs. It does come very hard on the small man. The appeal I would make is that there should be a definite reduction at any rate for the one-man firms, or the case of one man having one taxi or two—with possibly some prohibition that tie must not sell it during the year. I think this is one of the occasions when the hon. and gallant Member should have some support from this side of the House. Then there was the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Macpherson), the only Scottish Member in the House at the present time, who put in a word for the Scottish national game of shinty. That really would not cost very much money. It is only a matter of a ball and an implement to hit it with. I think there is joy in hitting a ball and it may have some advantages but it may be carried too far. From the point of view of the Scots people it would be a very small concession to make and I ask the Chancellor why they have been left out. Is it because the Chancellor was careless, as he was in the matter of the oars? There have been one or two occasions lately when the Government have seemed to suggest that a thing like a national game, does not very much matter. There is no Scotsman of influence in the Government today, so that it really does not matter; they treat the Scots any old how. But I will not follow that point any further.
There are one or two other points which I would like to ask about. We have

heard about cricket bats and that kind of thing. But why are fives gloves left out? Fives is one of the most inexpensive games you could have; but it is left out. Things like cricket balls and bats are brought in. Now, I have a point of a different character to bring forward. We had last year, on one of the Budget Resolutions, something relating to skins. I believe the Chancellor has really allowed us to have skins free of tax under this Resolution. It will be noticed that line 16 of the Resolution reads:
Floor coverings, including linoleum, but not including carpets, carpeting, rugs, matting and wooden floor coverings.
Obviously skins are not rugs. They may be made into rugs. They are obviously not carpets, and I do not think they are linoleum; but they might be mats. There was nearly a promise, last year, from the representative of the Exchequer that things like deerskins or sheepskins. which are sometimes used as semi-ornaments, would be included. That is why he is trying, I think, to put them in on a low exemption by calling them "floor coverings." Am I right in assuming that "floor coverings" include skins? Would any kind of skin have to be called a mat, or would you get exemption from Purchase Tax for them under this Resolution? I am not certain on this matter, but I know there are some people who are very anxious to have more information on the question. May I draw attention to one detail which I think is important? I think the House ought to notice that while we are giving these other concessions, the basic rate is to be charged dental sticks and toothpicks. These are very small and useful things in connection with health, something on the lines of tooth brushes. I think the Ministry of Health could easily give good reasons why these should be included in one of the higher categories in place of some of the things which are there at present. Whatever may be the advantage of razor strops, and sharpeners supplied as part of a toilet set, surely the last two articles mentioned in Part III are of particular value, in view of the appallingly bad quality of the food which the Government allows us, and the small quantity of that food. The Chancellor need not have gone out of his way to tax toothpicks so heavily. It shows the little ways in which the Government like to annoy people.

Mr. Howard: So far as I can detect any unifying purpose among these items before us it is that these articles will contribute towards the health of the people. The wise Use of most of these articles would improve the general health. Therefore, there is a good case for making them readily available, and I beg whoever is to reply for the Government to tell us what is the position of two articles not mentioned here. They are two articles of widely differing character, but they are things which can contribute as much to the health of the people as any of the items mentioned in the list. The first is the small sailing boat. There is no more healthy use of leisure time than to spend it with a small sailing boat. The other thing is the ordinary tooth-brush. What the health of the people would be if that brush were used more often and more regularly no one can say. Therefore, I would ask whoever is going to reply tonight for the Government to deal with these two items which are not mentioned.

Mr. Spence: I should like to support the claim which has been made that shinty should be included as one of the sports for which appliances can be supplied free of Purchase Tax. I think that, in common fairness, we have a good claim in Scotland to ask the Chancellor if he will include equipment for shinty among the sports gear which is to be tax free. I also support what has been said about the small sailing boat. Use of the sailing dinghy ought to be encouraged. I have it in mind that there are clubs for working men springing up, with boats sailed by the members, although those members may not be able to own a craft. The boats are owned collectively, and they give an admirable form of sport to people lucky enough to live near to places providing these facilities. We ought certainly to have Purchase Tax taken off the sailing dinghy, as apart from the yacht, if the Chancellor thinks he cannot go beyond a certain class. One could limit the class by size, or by size of sail.
I should like to refer to Part III—"dental sticks and toothpicks"—in order to seek an assurance that there is nothing ulterior behind this, that there is nothing grisly or grim about it, and that no secret has been given to the Chancellor by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Food. I would like to be assured that the reduction of tax is not being made in

order that these goods may be cheaper to the public because there is to be a change in our diet. It does not mean, I hope, that we are to be fed on figs instead of meat. In fact, I cannot understand why they are mentioned at all because there are so many larger items which could have been mentioned in the same light.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have been asked to reply to a number of questions, and I shall try to answer most of them quite briefly. First, I Was asked whether there had been a mistake and whether
rowing boats specially designed as racing boats,
should be understood to include all rowing boats.
11.30 p.m.
The short answer is that it is confined to racing boats and that it does not apply to any other type. The fact that oars are not mentioned is not a mistake or oversight but we cannot mention oars in this connection because an oar is such a universal thing that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to differentiate between one used in an ordinary boat and one used, say, by the university crews. A number of suggestions have been made for extending the list of sports which should receive this reduced Purchase Tax rate and I will see that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is made aware of the suggestions that have been put forward, particularly those which apply to girls and women. What has been done here has been to take out as hon. Members will have noticed what can be called the national sports and make a concession in their favour. Quite obviously we cannot exempt all sports and therefore we have to make a selection but as I say I will see that my right hon. Friend is apprised of the views put forward, particularly the view expressed on both sides of the House that some women's games at any rate should be included in the concessions given and he will no doubt consider it before we reach the further stages of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) asked me whether fur skins and rugs made of skins were included or exempt—[Interruption.] At any rate he asked me what the position was. I have to tell him that rugs made of furs, do pay duty at 100 per cent. They are not included in any part of this Resolution.

Mr. C. Williams: I apologise for not having made myself clear. I was not referring to what the Financial Secretary called fur skins. Those are variable. The furs I was referring to were the product of the animals of this country, such as rabbits, or deer, or cattle, or sheep used for the purpose of ordinary rugs, and which cannot be described as fur rugs. It is a very distinct thing. Can I have an answer to that?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The answer is that rugs made of fur of any kind do not enter into this Resolution at all. In so far as they are chargeable, that is, if they are expensive furs, they would be chargeable at the 100 per cent. rate. If they are of the more domestic kind, they pay duty at another rate, or pay no duty at all. It depends upon the fur, but it does not come within this Resolution at all, which deals with linoleum, floor coverings and the like. I think that is sufficiently explanatory to satisfy the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. C. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman is not exempting the things I am dealing with? I am trying to give the Chancellor an opportunity of dealing with them. They are skins made from deer, or sheep, or cattle. They are not rugs; they are skin coverings. Do I conclude that they are intended to be an exempted kind of floor covering?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: What I am trying to convey to the hon. Gentleman—I am probably doing it in an awkward way—is that floor coverings mentioned here do not include coverings of the kind he has in mind, namely, those manufactured from fur—rugs, or carpets or anything of that kind. What we have to deal with is linoleum. That, I think, is made perfectly plain. Carpets and rugs continue to pay 33⅓ per cent. which is the rate now charged. I was asked a question about taxis. Of course there will be an opportunity to deal with this at later stages of the Finance Bill—but I would like to say we have discussed this matter on previous occasions and the argument against doing what the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) suggests is the difficulty of knowing the use to which particular cars are to be put They are sometimes used as taxis. It is very difficult at the wholesale stage—the stage at which this tax is levied—to know exactly to what use the car is to be put. The suggestion that a special taxicab

should be manufactured and that that should attract a rebate—

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: May I point out that I limited my remarks to taxicabs required for use in London, which are all special taxis and never used for any other purpose.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am trying to make that point quite clear and to answer it in as short a way as possible. The difficulty is to discriminate in matters of taxation in favour of a small section of the people in one particular city in the British Isles. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will have the opportunity, as I suggested, of carrying the matter further to a more convenient occasion and I need say no more on that at the moment.
A question was put by the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) as to the meaning of the words:
domestic water filter designed to remove bacteria and other suspended impurities from drinking water, etc.
Impurities if they have gone into solution would not be caught by this particular type of filter. The filter referred to here is a filter which does operate where impurities are actually suspended in water, and that is why those words are used. There is a differentiation between this type which does this particular kind of work and another type which may have to filter impurities which have gone into solution or dropped to the bottom. I hope the House will now let us have this Resolution.

Captain Crookshank: I have no intention of prolonging the Debate and I should like to say we are much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for saying that he will tell the Chancellor of the points which have been raised. Generally speaking, we agree with what the Chancellor said in his Budget speech, that this year we could not go much farther along the road of great changes in Purchase Tax because of the general financial situation. But, as the right hon. Gentleman will have observed, we reserve our right to raise a certain number of minor points. We have not had on this occasion the feature which we had last year, when the Chancellor came down and said, "We have so much to give away," and everybody scrambled for it. In the present financial circumstances that would be very unwise.

Consideration of remaining Resolutions adjourned.—[Mr. William Whiteley.]

Ninth and Subsequent Resolutions to be considered Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE (SAVINGS BANKS)

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]

Question again proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to Finance, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund—

(a) of such sums, into the Post Office Savings Bank Fund and the Fund for the Banks for Savings, as may be provided for by the said Act;
(b) of such expenses (including the remuneration of members and officers) of the Inspection Committee established under section two of the Savings Banks Act, 1891, and such expenses of the National Debt Commissioners, as may be so provided for,
and to repeal subsection (2) of section four of the Savings Banks Act, 1891 (which requires expenses of the said Inspection Committee to be levied from trustee savings banks in certain cases).

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Howard: I want to ask for some further information regarding the extremely unsatisfactory explanation which the Chancellor started to give on this matter on Thursday last. As I read this Resolution, it is a matter of the greatest importance. Unless I totally misunderstand it, the Chancellor's explanation seems to require to have a good deal added to it or withdrawn from it. I will remind the Committee of what the Chancellor actually said when dealing with the matter in his Budget speech. He said:
I shall also propose—this is a small technical point—a Resolution to put the backing of the Consolidated Fund behind the deposits of the Savings Banks. That is a technical matter, which I shall explain in Committee. The effect will be to tidy up our accounts, and to give depositors even better security than they have at the present time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1947; Vol. 436, C. 57.]
The Chancellor claimed that it was a technical point and that he would give an explanation in Committee. I do not know whether he had forgotten that undertaking, but he seemed rather surprised when asked in the most courteous way by my right hon. and

gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) whether he would give some little explanation when he reached the Committee stage. I think the Committee possibly has not realised the grave implications of what the Chancellor said on that occasion. The Chancellor said:
The rate of interest on the Savings Bank deposits stands at 2½ per cent. It has so stood for a very long time, and I have no intention of altering it.
Here comes the important passage:
The consequence, however, might be—although it is not yet the case—that a deficiency would arise on the Savings Bank accounts. As the rates of interest on Government securities in general have been brought down, it might be that when we take account also of expenses of management, in a year or two's time, if the cheap money policy progresses well, there would be a slight deficiency on these accounts.—
a deficiency on the savings bank accounts—
For these reasons we desire to institute a change of practice.… the purpose being to give an even greater security than at present exists for those deposits.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1947; Vol. 436, c. 467–8.]
Is that the purpose? Is that the true explanation? I hesitate to use positive words in regard to what I understood the Chancellor to mean by this, but I ask the Financial Secretary whether it would be unreasonable to assume, from the Chancellor's words, that there is a danger in a foreseeable future time, which may not be far off, that the Post Office Savings Bank and the trustee savings banks will, on account of the cheap money policy, be unable to earn sufficient so that after the payment of their expenses they can meet what is due to their depositors in full. It certainly gives that impression. There is also the way in which this Resolution is divided into two parts. It refers first to any sums that may be paid into these banks as may be set forth in the Finance Act. The second part—I would particularly like to ask for an explanation of this because it seems to me an astonishing practice—refers to:
… such expenses (including the remuneration of members and officers) of the Inspection Committee. …
Would it be fair to say that these inspection committees are rather equivalent to the functions of the auditor in ordinary company work? It is perfectly normal in a company to pay the expense of having the company's accounts audited.


It was perfectly normal that the expenses of inspecting the accounts of these savings banks should be charged up to those banks, but now it is suggested that the special statutory provision which provides for that must be withdrawn. Does it really mean that the Post Office Savings Bank and the trustee savings banks are going to be unable to pay the expenses of having their accounts inspected? I repeat that I dare not assert that these interpretations are the correct ones. Unless I am hopelessly misguided by the wording, I beg the Chancellor's deputy to give a fuller explanation and, if necessary, to withdraw the explanation which the Chancellor gave on Thursday of last week.

11.45 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): This Resolution, as the hon. Member for Westminster, St. George's (Mr. Howard) said, is to provide for meeting a possible deficit that might arise in the finances of the savings banks, that is, the Post Office Savings Bank and the trustee savings banks. The deficiency has not yet occurred, and we are not certain yet that it will, but if does appear to us likely that one will occur next year or the year after, in both of these great institutions. The reason why we expect a deficiency is that the rate of interest which is offered to depositors in both these organisations is 2½ per cent. There was a discussion some time ago as to whether the rate offered to depositors in the Post Office and Trustee Savings Banks should be reduced below 2½ per cent., and fairly recently the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that there was no intention of doing that and that the rate of 2½ per cent. would be continued in order that small savers should be attracted to put their money into one or other of these institutions. If we give to depositors 2½ per cent. and if now, owing to the cheap money policy which is being pursued by the present Government, money can only earn 2½ per cent., it is quite obvious that presently there will be a difference between the 2½ per cent. which can be earned by investment and the 2½ per cent. which the banks themselves give to the depositor on the money which they in turn use and invest.
Actually on the Post Office Savings Bank it is necessary that 2¾ per cent. should be earned because 2½ per cent. is given to the depositor by way of interest,

and the overheads, expenses of management and so on amount to another ¼ per cent.—[An HON. MEMBER: "At least."] I think it can be assumed that that is pretty accurately the figure. When we come to the trustee savings banks I think it is three-eighths, making it 2⅞, which has to be earned. It is quite obvious that a deficiency might arise. We believe that it is desirable that 2½ per cent. should continue to be given to small savers who deposit their money in these institutions, and therefore it is essential that we should do something to put the credit of the State behind the Treasury in this matter, and that is what we propose in this Resolution. We believe this is the right thing to do. It will reassure the small saver that he can absolutely rely on the maintenance of his interest at 2½ per cent. and that there will be covering authority for investment of the funds in furtherance of the Government's policy, and not purely on income considerations. For these considerations we ask the Committee to give us the Resolution which we think right and proper in all the circumstances of the time.

Captain Crookshank: I think at this hour of the night the right hon. Gentleman can have his Resolution, as, after all, it is discussable again, but my hon. Friends may have points to raise on it at a later stage. It is quite true that this Resolution was introduced as a result of the House last Wednesday having given the Government authority to intro duce it, and that it was not discussed, because it came immediately before the resumption of the Budget Debate, which was not a convenient occasion for discussing it. The right hon. Gentleman, or the Chancellor, will have to explain on some future occasion why they have taken the course of introducing this Resolution leading up to Clauses in the Finance Bill. At first sight, it looks like the grossest tacking. It is extremely dubious if the matter is completely in Order, but the House having passed the Resolution, the Government are covered on the point as to whether it was constitutional procedure or not. On the proper occasion we shall expect the Chancellor to give an explanation why this procedure was adopted.

Resolved:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to Finance, it is ex-


pedient to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund—

(a) of such sums, into the Post Office Savings Bank Fund and the Fund for the Banks for Savings, as may be provided for by the said Act;
(b) of such expenses (including the remuneration of members and officers) of the Inspection Committee established under Section two of the Savings Banks Act, 1891, and such expenses of the National Debt Commissioners, as may be so provided for,
and to repeal Subsection (2) of Section four of the Savings Banks Act, 1891 (which requires expenses of the said Inspection Committee to be levied from trustee savings banks in certain cases).

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Mr. Herbert Morrison and Mr. Montague be discharged from the Committee of Privileges and that Mr. Thomas Reid and Mr. Edward Davies be added."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

11.54 p.m.

Mr. Churchill: This is an unusual departure, brought on with little explanation, in fact no explanation. The Committee of Privileges plays a very important part in the business of the House of Commons. Very difficult cases are remitted to it. Two important cases, affecting large issues, are now before it. The Committee of Privileges has always consisted of Members of considerable, and usually long, experience in the House. It is thought that they know, perhaps by experience of several Parliaments, something about the way in which we carry on our affairs, which is quite a different way from the manner in which so many foreign assemblies are conducted. It is rather a precious thing the life of the House of Commons. A great many new Members have come in. I am sure that they have felt that they have learned a great deal about the give and take, all those easements there are at the root of English public life. This is the sovereign Assembly of the nation and the cradle of Parliamentary institutions throughout the world. The Privileges of Parliament are surely of the utmost consequence. It is a most astonishing thing that the Leader of the House of Commons should be taken off the Committee of Privileges. We are glad to know that he is restored in health; we hope that he will

not overtax himself on his immediate return to his duties.
But the Prime Minister used always to be on the Committee of Privileges. I really do not remember when that has not been the case, except during the stress of the war, but then there is, in his place, the Leader of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister has gone, the Leader of the House of Commons now goes, and in place of experienced Members like the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) and the Leader of the House, two Members are proposed of whom I say nothing, for I know nothing about them. Though we wish them every success in their Parliamentary career, both of them came into Parliament at the 1945 Election. They are to be put on the Committee of Privileges, which is supposed to be composed of senior Members of the House, Members of considerable experience, accustomed to deal with these affairs. These two new men, neophytes in Parliamentary life, are to be put on to a Committee which is not a numerous one. This is brought on and pushed upon us at this time. There is no institution that the Government touch that they do not demoralise.

11.57 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley): I quite appreciate what the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) has said in regard to the Committee of Privileges being the most important institution in connection with this House. In putting these names forward, we are not trying in any way to make that Committee less important. It is true that the Lord President of the Council, we hope, is coming back fairly well restored to health, but it is some time ago that he asked to be relieved of this position. Then, of course, it is true that most of the Members, even from our side, are very old Members of the House of Commons, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we have to look to the future, in some sense, and that we have to give people an opportunity of experience, provided that they are men who are able to deal with questions of evidence, to sift evidence, and to come to a real judgment.

Mr. Churchill: Could they not gain their experience by their work in the House, and then give the fruits of their experience in work on the Committee of Privileges?

Mr. Whiteley: That may be true, but my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) has had a tremendous experience in foreign parts in dealing with evidence and with cases of various kinds. He really has had a very great experience; the nomination is of a man of very great capability, with experience in committee work of various kinds in other spheres. I am quite sure myself that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will find that these two particular nominations will not lower the standard of the Committee, but will, I hope, bring some additional experience to the Committee in due course.

12 m.

Captain Crookshank: I think the right hon. Gentleman's replies are not at all satisfactory, and I would like to ask your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to move the Adjournment of this Debate which has come on at such a very late hour. It is a matter which affects every Private Member even more than Front Bench Members, and it is one which ought to be discussed at a reasonable hour and not now when, so far as I know, except that the right hon. Gentleman was courteous enough to tell us that it was to be taken tonight, I doubt whether more than ten or a dozen Members had any idea that it was coming on at all. It was not announced at Business time today, it was not announced last Thursday; anything affecting the interests of the whole House should be discussed at a time when a reasonable number of Members of the House know that it is coming on and, at least, have the opportunity of being present to hear the points raised. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will think that that is a reasonable proposal. It would be most unfortunate if there was a great difference of opinion in a matter of this kind and a decision was reached in an unfavourable atmosphere.
Of course, my right hon. Friend has given, as one would expect, an absolutely accurate description of the kind of Committee that this has always been; it has always been considered a very great privilege, if one may so use the word, to be a Member of the Committee 'of Privileges. It is certainly not the kind of Committee to which, in the past at any rate, this House has nominated Members in order that they might gain experience

of the Committee itself. It has been the kind of Committee to which the House has been very careful to nominate Members who, it thought, had already acquired experience, because that is what is required. The right hon. Gentleman nods his head in agreement. How in the world can he justify the proposition concerning two hon. Members, against whom, as Members of this House, no one has anything to say—I hope they will realise this; we must make it clear that this is not a personal matter in any shape or form—how can he, having nodded his head, saying it was a Committee on which Members of experience should sit, then propose to the House two Members who, through no fault of their own, through not having been elected long enough ago, have not that experience?
Seeing the Solicitor-General there reminds me of one other point which is perhaps relevant; I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will not mind my saying it, but the Law Officers themselves have not had long experience of this House, and, therefore, already there is some element on that Committee which is, in the accepted term, somewhat inexperienced. We think it would be a great mistake to add two more at this stage, because, after all, we know that there are on the benches behind the right hon. Gentleman other Members of his party who have sat in the House for a long time, who have experience, and who would be, at least so far as we can judge, suitable to fill these vacancies. Moreover, we find it difficult to accept the proposition that neither the Prime Minister nor the Leader of the House should be Members of the Committee. It seems to me a most extraordinary idea, unless, of course, it means that the Lord President is going to give up the leadership of the House on his return. If this is a way of making that announcement public, it is a very curious way, but it is possibly the only explanation of this proposal.
However, having said that, I now go back to my original proposal and that is that the right hon. Gentleman should accept the Adjournment of the Debate—I gather that it is in Order to move it, or you would have stopped me before, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—in order that the House as a whole may come to a considered opinion on this matter, instead of the handful of us who are here now, of whom an even smaller proportion, until


my right hon. Friend got up to speak on the matter, had any idea that it was to be raised tonight. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will think that that is reasonable, and I should like to hear whether he will accept it or not.

I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

12.5 a.m.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I had no idea that this matter was going to be opposed by the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) was good enough to say that some notice was given to the Opposition, but we had no notice—not that we are entitled to it—that they were going to oppose this Motion.

Captain Crookshank: May I intervene? We have tried to find out in the last hour whether this Motion would be taken or not I was on the Front Bench and I asked about it and I gathered that the Patronage Secretary had not made up his mind.

Mr. Alexander: Whilst I accept what both right hon. Gentlemen say, that they do not wish to cast reflections on either of the hon. Members whose names are in the Motion, I must say that both hon. Members must feel somewhat under some reflection that the matter has been raised in this way. Nor do I think the right hon. Gentleman can have looked up the experience of the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid), who is one of the Members concerned. He has had great experience abroad, in the Colonies. He is a university graduate, and he has held fairly substantial rank in the Army and has served upon judicial bodies and been a member of a number of other committees, I myself have been a Member of this House for some time, off and on—I was out for four years—certainly for a quarter of a century. It would take a great deal of time and research to discover when all parties who have been responsible for nominating representatives of their own party to serve on all-party committees have used men who have not been in the House for a great length of time, but who have had experience known to their party in other affairs. I do not really see why the Government, in nominating to the House, through the

responsibility of their own knowledge, men in whom they believed and in whom they had confidence, should be challenged. I do not feel it would be right to accept, almost as a matter of reflection on the duty of the Government, an Adjournment Motion.

12.7 a.m.

Mr. Churchill: We are all very glad to see the Minister of Defence has emerged from his dugout and come again into the front line. I hope he is sufficiently restored to be able to take part in Parliamentary discussion.

Mr. Alexander: Might I put ourselves in Order? 'There is a Motion before the House. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman has spoken—

Mr. Churchill: The right hon. Gentleman is no doubt a little dazzled by coming' from the darkness of his dugout, otherwise he would have known that the Motion for the Adjournment is a new Motion and entitles hon. Members who have already spoken in the previous Debate to take further part in the discussion.
I do not wish to add by any words I say to the emotions that no doubt surge within his bosom. I am supporting the Motion for the Adjournment, and everything the Patronage Secretary said seems to me to reinforce the validity of that request. He says that one of the hon. Gentlemen has had great experience in the Colonies. But what we want in the Committee of Privileges are people who have great experience of the House of Commons. Until the old House is rebuilt there is a feeling that people who know about the House of Commons ought to be on that Committee. They feel that the Committee should not be an experimental ground either for strong partisan nominees or for new Members to break in their paces and learn something about our Parliamentary affairs. The Committee have never been treated in this way before. It is a departure and that is the reason for the Motion for the Adjournment. It is a new departure at a late hour of the night. Without pre-warning or preparation there is sprung upon us, after some hesitation by the Patronage Secretary, and a tardy final decision, a proposal which entirely alters the character of the Committee of Privileges. It is no longer to be a body composed of


Members of the House with long experience of this Chamber and its affairs, but just newcomers selected by the Government of the day and forced through by their majority. That is a very serious departure, far more serious than it might appear, because the Committee of Privileges is not like ordinary Committees.
The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence, was telling us how these Committees had often received new nominees. There is no Committee of the same kind as the Committee of Privileges. At the beginning of a Parliament and of every Session, when Parliament meets, one of the first things done is to appoint the Committee of Privileges, and it is done, nearly always, by complete agreement, according to precedent and long established custom. Now, all of a sudden, a change is made. Important Ministers are removed, and Members who have not yet served two years in this House—a couple of them—are appointed to this Committee at a time when more and more important questions are being thrust upon us. I am not attempting, at this moment, to argue the merits of the cases. By implication I may have given some indication of my views upon them. I am saying that this ought not to be brought up, with this notice, at this late hour of the night, and ought not to have been brought forward without some more serious consideration than has been given to it. Of course, the Government are all-powerful. They are the masters, and can do anything they like. There is nothing which the party opposite cannot do. They can do anything they like, and we have only to like the consequences after they have done it. As far as we are concerned, on this side of the House, we shall divide against this Motion, and that will have its reflection on the general course and character imparted to the Committee of Privileges in previous years.

12.12 a.m.

Mr. Pritt: The Opposition has a perfect right to challenge these nominations, and to move the Adjournment.

Mr. Churchill: Mr. Churchill indicated assent.

Mr. Pritt: I am very glad to know that I have the gratitude of one of the more distinguished Members on that side of the House for this platitude. But on

account of the way some things have been said, it is necessary to mention it. I agree that the Committee of Privileges is a particularly important one. It has judicial, or quasi-judicial, powers. Therefore, unless there is some great scandal—and no one suggests anything against the character of those nominated—it is a great pity that anything should be said or done which could make the public feel, even for a moment, any doubt about the integrity or veracity of the Committee of Privileges. One would think that the Opposition had some grave reason for challenging the matter, and yet they really disclaim any reason for doing it except for one or two points they have made. I want to deal with them. They say it is important that the Committee should have the benefit of Members experienced in the life of this House and not so much experienced in work on the Committees. I would suggest that it is very important that the Committee of Privileges should be composed of people who have some experience in both those directions; that the Members of the Committee of Privileges should have some knowledge of how to do their important judicial work, as well as experience of this House. The two hon. Gentlemen mentioned have, at any rate, the best part of two years' experience of this House, and, as one who has been in this House before the present Parliament, and knowing the way in which it works at present, and remembering the number of new hon. Members many of whom have already made their mark and who challenge comparison with any other House in history by their character and common sense, we should remember this fact. We should remember that the experience gained in this House is as good as five years' experience of any other House and it is right to expect that, in this new House, there should be hon. Members on the Committee who have not had experience of other Parliaments. The suggestion that it is not right or sensible to put new hon. Members on the Committee reminds me of the old saying that one should not go into the water until one had learned to swim. I regret that any objection has been made to these appointments, but I am glad that the Government are standing firm.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), who normally deals with trivialities in a more entertaining manner


than anybody else in this House, and seldom deals with anything else—

Captain Crookshank: Is the tobacco tax a triviality?

Mr. Pritt: I am sorry, but I was out of the Chamber when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman dealt with the tobacco tax, and I regret that I missed what must have been a unique experience. [Interruption.] Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I do not know if it is right to draw your attention to the fact that there is continued chatter by the Chief Whip from whom we used to expect good manners.

Mr. Churchill: He is not the Chief Whip.

Mr. Pritt: I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) ought to know that I refer to his Chief Whip, with whom, no doubt, he has a nodding acquaintance.
What I wanted to say was that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough tried to depreciate both Law Officers of the Crown and the Committee of Privileges by pointing out that they had not been in this House for very long.

Mr. Churchill: They are a poor couple.

Mr. Pritt: I know a good deal more about lawyers than does the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford. The Law Officers are not special friends of mine, but I can say that, since these two gentlemen came into this House, and took on their very responsible offices, which are—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I must point out to right hon. and hon. Members that these interruptions are not only undesirable, but unnecessary.

Mr. Pritt: I think that the bulk of this House will agree that these two gentlemen have discharged their very difficult offices pretty well. Secondly, I think it must be agreed that they have shown a very quick absorption of the manners of life in this House, which is something which very few people who have been in the House a great deal longer would say they did not envy. The right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough, who is certainly guilty of having been ungenerous,

should not have sought to depreciate the Law Officers and the Committee of Privileges at the same time.
The Opposition are attacking the appointment of two hon. Gentlemen to the Committee of Privileges. I sincerely hope that we have heard the last of this rather ungenerous intervention and that we shall leave the Committee of Privileges still commanding the respect of the House and the country.

12.20 a.m.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: I hope that the Patronage Secretary will agree to postpone the final decision on this important matter until another day. That is what we are asking now. [HON.MEMBERS: "Why?"] For three reasons. First, because it has been the practice in this House in the normal, friendly working of day-to-day business to give notice of important questions of this kind. Now, notice was given not more than two or three hours ago.

Mr. Whiteley: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. This was on the Paper in such a position as indicated that it was to be taken tonight.

Mr. Macmillan: I am not trying to make an unfair point. I think the Patronage Secretary knows this House well enough to realise that a great number of Orders are put upon the Paper every day, and if it was really thought that all the things on the Order Paper every day were going to be discussed that day we should have many disappointments in this House. The normal practice is that, either upon Thursday or upon giving out the Business of the day, we are told what is to be taken when it is anything outside some purely routine question. And in point of fact the Patronage Secretary did his best to inform us, during the course of the day, that he intended to pursue this Order. He did not make up his mind, perhaps, to do so until during the course of today's Sitting, and he subsequently informed us. But he did not tell us about it on Thursday of last week or at the beginning of today's Business. He knows well enough that a great number of matters of this kind are put upon the Order Paper day by day and taken when convenient. But an important matter of this kind should be taken when the House has had proper notice and when the whole matter can be discussed. There are two points to which I would call the


attention of the Patronage Secretary and the Minister of Defence, whom we are really happy to see here—I do not know whether he came specially for this Order, whether he knew better than we did, or at what moment he was told it would be taken. In the first place, we are not objecting so much to the appointment of new and untried Members. I think that perhaps if one such hon. Member had been put on that might have been reasonable.
This seems to be quite contrary to the whole practice of this House. I ask the Patronage Secretary whether, in the whole history of this House, there is any precedent for the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House not becoming a Member of the Committee of Privileges? What is the function of the Leader of the House? It is to lead the House. It means that he is not merely the Leader of any particular party. He has a dual function. It is to advise and guide the House, to act really as its leader, and he has by long tradition of this House something apart from a party position. He is the Leader of the House of Commons, and the House of Commons has a right to ask for his guidance and leadership. Has there been any occasion during the whole course of Parliament, or since this Committee has existed, when the Committee has contained neither the Prime Minister of the day nor the Leader of the House of Commons? That is a very great change. There may be very good and adequate reasons. There may be such a change in our situation that neither of these two important Ministers can see fit to take on this task.
But in the old days, except in the case of war, the Prime Minister was himself Leader of the House. Then for the particular circumstances of war we have had the practice on very rare occasions when

the leadership of the House of Commons was handed over from the Prime Minister to another Minister. It was because the Prime Minister was too busy or had too many matters on his mind that he handed over the work to one of his colleagues. What more important feature of leadership can there be than to be a Member of the Committee of Privileges? It is the very centre of the life of the House of Commons and I do hope that we might at least have an opportunity of discussing the whole position of the leadership of the House of Commons in relation to the Committee of Privileges on an occasion when the whole House can be warned that this matter will be under Debate arid when we can have greater consideration of it.

I think the Government really might meet us. They can force this through with their authority and power if they wish it. They will not lose too much if they postpone it for a day or two. They will not lose any Parliamentary time. They can bring it on after the ordinary day's Business; there is no difficulty about that. I ask the House to consider what a big change this is. For the first time in our history the Leader of the House of Commons is not a Member of a vital Committee on which the whole life of the House of Commons revolves. The Government will not lose much by waiting a day or two before forcing this matter through, giving the whole House an opportunity of considering it and perhaps in the light of what we have put forward, reconsidering it.

Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

The House divided: Ayes 35; Noes, 76.

Division No. 135.
AYES.
[12.28 a.m.


Baldwin, A. E.
Keeling, E. H.
Scott, Lord W.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Kendall, W. D.
Spence, H. R.


Carson, E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight)
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Drayson, G. B
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Duthie, W. S.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)



Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G
Neven-Spence, Sir B,
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O
Major Conant and Lieut.—Colonel


Howard, Hon. A
Ramsay, Major S.
Thorp.




NOES.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Fairhurst, F.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Foot, M. M.
Price, M. Philips


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Pritt, D. N.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Austin, H. L.
Hale, Leslie
Robens, A.


Baird, J.
Hall, W. G.
Royle, C.


Berry, H.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Sharp, Granville


Beswick, F
Herbison, Miss M.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Bing, G. H. C.
Hobson, C. R.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Blackburn, A. R.
Hoy, J.
Skeffington, A. M.


Blyton, W. R.
Kenyon, C.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C


Boardman, H.
Lavers, S.
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Leonard, W
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Callaghan, James
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Stubbs, A. E.


Cooks, F. S.
Longden, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Collick, P.
Mack, J. D.
Tiffany, S.


Callindridge, F.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Ungoed-Thomas, L


Colman, Miss G. M
Mellish, R. J.
Watkins, T. E.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Mikardo, Ian
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Morris, P (Swansea, W.)
Whiteley, Rt Hon. W.


Deer, G.
Moyle, A.
Williams, J. L (Kelvingrove)


Delargy, Captain H. J
Nally, W.
Yates, V. F


Diamond, J.
Neal, H. (Claycross)



Driberg, T. E. N.
Oliver, G. H.



Dumpleton, C. W.
Palmer, A. M. F
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Pargiter, C. A
Mr. Michael Stewart and


Ewart, R
Pearson, A
Mr. Simmons.

Original Question again proposed

12.35 a.m.

Mr. Marlowe: I do not propose at this time of the night to pursue the merits of this case about which I have no information at all. So far as I know, the two hon. Gentlemen who have beep proposed are perfectly suitable for this task, and I have no comments to make to the contrary. What I am concerned with is this. You will remember, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that there was one very important case referred to the Committee of Privileges concerned with the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), and whether or not the Committee of Privileges has already entered upon the hearing of that case I do not know. Apart from that case, there was the further case which was raised by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg).

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman, but he is out of Order in referring to cases before they have been referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Marlowe: I was not proposing to refer to them. I was merely referring to the fact that they had been referred to the Committee of Privileges. I certainly would not make any reference to the cases themselves, but, surely, we are in Order in this House in using our own knowledge that we as hon. Members of the House have referred certain facts to the Committee of Privileges? I do not propose to pursue the matter further than

that. I do not want to deal with the merits of the two hon. Gentlemen who have been proposed as new Members of the Committee of Privileges, but this Motion also refers to the fact that two former Members of the Committee of Privileges shall be discharged from their functions. If the position is—I have no information—that one of those Members—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman is not in Order. He cannot assume that this House has any knowledge of what the Committee of Privileges has done before it reports.

Mr. Marlowe: I agree, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. That is the difficulty I am in, and that is why I said that I had no knowledge. What I would like to know as a matter of practice—I will not refer to any specific case which has gone from this House—is what happens when a case is referred to the Committee of Privileges and there is a change of the judges, as it were, during the hearing of that case. that is what I. am concerned with. I make no particular reference to any specific case in view of your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but suppose the Committee of Privileges is already seized of a case and has entered on the hearing of it, what is to happen when the tribunal which is hearing that case changes its character in the middle of the case? The position we have at the moment—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman has placed me in


somewhat of a difficulty. By putting forward this matter he is obviously expecting to get an answer to his question. There is no one that can give an answer to the question he has postulated.

Mr. Marlowe: Is that really the position, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? The Motion was moved by the Patronage Secretary and I am only putting this question to him. After all, we have to vote on this matter and I am only putting the question to him as the mover of this Motion as to what is the effect if it should happen that Members of the Committee of Privileges are discharged in the middle of their functions. Such a principle would be particularly contrary to anything which occurs in a court of law, that a judge, half way through a case, should change over with another judge. In such circumstances, the case would have to be started again. I only want to know for the purpose of information before I decide how I am to vote on this Motion, which refers not only to the appointment of two new Members but to the discharge of two old ones, whether we should agree to discharging them before they have completed any functions on which they may be engaged
That is the only matter I am concerned with. We have been given no reason why the Leader of the House should be discharged from this function. It is not a matter which can be undertaken lightly and discharged. It is a duty imposed on him by the House. As we have previously requested the Leader of the House to become a Member of the Committee of Privileges, as I understand the procedure, he has to seek the agreement of this House before he can be discharged from that function. Perhaps I am not asking too much if, before I agree to that, I ask whether he has completed the functions he was appointed to discharge? If the position is that there should be any outstanding matters which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has not completed, I would be grateful if the Patronage Secretary could tell me what eventuates from that and whether we are right in allowing the Leader of the House to be discharged from this task if he should have failed to complete the task for which he was appointed.

12.40 a.m.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I apologise to the House for intervening in a Debate of which I have

not been fortunate enough to hear the whole. I very much hope the House will consider very carefully before it decides to adopt this Motion. May I get over a preliminary difficulty straight away? As regards the new appointments, may I say at once that I have the pleasure of knowing only one of the hon. Members concerned, and of him I have the highest opinion. I do not want it to be thought that anything I say is a reflection of any kind on the two hon. Members whom it is proposed by this Motion to put on the Committee of Privileges. I think the more questionable part of the Motion is that which relates to those we propose to take off the Committee. Some of us have had occasion at times, perhaps not as Members of Parliament, but as lawyers, to study the history of the privileges of this House, and the decisions of this House on Privilege. One of the remarkable and rather splendid things about this House is the continuity of the decisions, and the way in which together they make a body of law and to the student the decisions are largely forseeable quite independently of what party has from time to time provided the majority. The success of the House in dealing with privileges, and the success of the Committee of Privileges, does I think depend on two or three factors which we should all wish to preserve. The first is that the Committee in its membership must quite clearly command the greatest respect of the whole House. That is greatly facilitated if the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister, or at least one of these right hon. Gentlemen, is serving on the Committee. It is very difficult to think that the Committee of Privileges can command quite the same respect in the House as a whole and outside—and its reputation outside is also important to this House—if the most important Members of this House, contrary to precedent, are not members of the Committee. There is another point—

Mr. Alexander: I think the hon. and learned Member has overlooked for the time being the fact that my right hon. Friend who has been acting Leader of the House almost since the beginning of this year, is a Member of the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Strauss: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I do not think that it essentially alters my argument. If the acting Leader of the House ceases to be the acting Leader and


becomes the Leader and still remains a member of the Committee of Privileges, that would slightly affect my argument, but, until that happens. it does not affect the argument which I am putting forward. I want to assure the House that I am not conscious of speaking as a party man in what I am now putting forward. In every case since I have been in the House, when a matter has been referred to the Committee of Privileges, I think that without exception we have subsequently adopted its recommendations unchanged, or with the smallest possible amendment. The fact that that has been so has been of great advantage to this House. I do not think that that can be relied on to quite the same extent if the Committee of Privileges is regarded and treated rather as lesser Committees of this House are treated, and not as what it is, as indeed the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) pointed out, a Committee which has to deal with matters which are legal or quasi-legal. For all those reasons I believe that this House would be consulting its own interests and its own reputation, and the Government would be well advised, if they now took whatever are the appropriate steps not to proceed with this Motion, and certainly not to proceed with it tonight. If it is possible to constitute the Committee of Privileges in such a way that it commands the undoubted approval of every section of the House, that is of the greatest possible advantage. I believe that that would be perfectly possible, but I do not believe that it will be possible if the right hon. Gentleman persists in this Motion tonight.

12.46 a.m.

Mr. Bing: I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) did not intend in any way to mislead the House, but it is perhaps desirable to look for a moment at the history of the Committee of Privileges. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman well knows that until the great Reform Bill of 1832, a permanent Committee of Privileges was appointed, but after the great

Reform Bill, with the exception of 1841, no permanent Committee of Privileges was appointed until 1903. Indeed, it was the universal practice of this House to appoint a Committee of Privileges to go into each question ad hoc until that date. If the hon. and learned Member is right in saying that there is a considerable tradition dealing with the privileges of the House in that period, there can be no possible objection to returning to something which was only finally departed from by a Liberal Government of 1906. If one looks at the historical circumstances, I do not feel that in these circumstances there is any foundation in the argument advanced up to this stage. I feel that the hon. and learned Member's argument is perhaps as wide as the one advanced to us on the Adjournment Motion by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), who did not realise this business was coming up today. If hon. Members who have been in the House for two years are able to read the Order Paper, and to read what Business is to be taken today and tomorrow, they are as fitted to sit on the Committee of Privileges as the right hon. Gentleman, who, though they have been in the House for perhaps 20 years, are not able as yet to follow what business is due to be taken.

Captain Crookshank: Is any reply to be given to the question of my hon. and learned Friend as to what happens if a case is half heard and the membership of the Committee is changed?

Mr. Alexander: That is quite irrelevant to the Motion which is before the House. The Committee set up to deal with two cases has not yet met, and the change in personnel cannot affect cases which are not yet heard.

Question put,
That Mr. Herbert Horrison and Mr. Montague be discharged from the Committee of Privileges and that Mr. Thomas Reid and Mr. Edward Davies be added

The House divided: Ayes, 77; Noes, 35.

Division No. 136.
AYES
12.50 a.m


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Foot, M. M.
Pritt, D. N.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Griffiths, D. (Rother valley)
Robens, A


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Hale, Leslie
Royle, C.


Austin, H. L.
Hall, W. G.
Sharp, Granville


Baird, J.
Herbison, Miss M
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Berry, H
Hobson, C. R
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Beswick, F.
Hoy, J.
Simmons, C. J


Bing, G. H. C.
Kenyon, C
Skeffington, A. M.


Blackburn, A. R.
Lavers S.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C


Blyton, W. R
Leonard, W.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Boardman, H.
Lewis, A. W. J (Upton)
Snow, Capt. J. W.



Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Longden, F
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Callaghan, James
Mack, J. D.
Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)


Cocks, F. S
MacMillan, M K (Western Isles)
Stubbs, A. E.


Collick, P.
Mellish, R. J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Colman, Miss G. M
Mikardo, Ian
Tiffany, S.


Crossman, R H. S.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Moyle, A.
Watkins, T. E


Deer, G.
Nally, W.
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)



Delargy, Captain H. J
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Diamond, J.
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, J. L (Kelvingrove)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Palmer, A M F
Yates, V. F.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Pargiter, G. A



Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Pearson, A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ewart, R.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Mr. Collindridge and Mr. Hannan


Fairhurst, F
Price, M. Philips





NOES


Baldwin, A. E.
Keeling, E. H
Scott, Lord W


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. I
Kendall, W. D
Spence, H. R.


Carson, E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon O.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle at Wight)
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Manningham-Buller, R E
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Marlowe, A. A. H
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Drayson, G. B
Marshall, D (Bodmin)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lors


Duthie, W. S
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)



Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O
Major Conant and


Howard. Hon. A
Ramsay, Major S.
Lieut.—Colonel Thorp.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENT

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section I of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Chipping Norton, a copy of which Order was presented on 18th April, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section I of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the County Borough of Rotherham, a copy of which Order was presented on 18th April, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section I of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Maldon, a copy of which Order was presented on 18th April, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section I of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Glossop, a copy of which Order was presented on 18th April. be approved."—[Mr. Oliver.]

Orders of the Day — GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR (EMPLOYMENT)

Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Michael Stewart.]

12.58 a.m.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: In spite of the pressure which has been put on me the time, and the tenseness of the atmosphere created by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, I intend to go on with this Adjournment Debate. The matter I am raising is one of considerable importance and both I and various other hon. Members who have for some time interested ourselves in it, are disturbed by the hesitation, in the light of what seem to be premature statements with which it is at present surrounded. My main object tonight is to obtain some clarification of the issues from the Parliamentary Secretary, who I see is here, together with assurances that the Government is not going back on undertakings given in respect of questions put on 13th May, and 13th and 18th March last, in this House.

Mr. Driberg: Tell them the subject.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: The gist of the answers then made about the future employment of German prisoners of war in this country was that arrangements were being worked out whereby prisoners of war could be retained in agriculture as civilians, provided the farmers employing them could accommodate them and that their remaining here was not detrimental to British workers. This plan was endorsed by the Minister of Agriculture in the Distribution of Manpower Debate on 19th March and again on 31st March. Let me turn to one of the latest announcements on this subject made in reply to a Question put I think, by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) who I believe wants to say something in this Debate if possible. His Question was put to the Secretary of State for War. Among other things the Secretary of State for War said that the number of prisoners of war anxious to stay here to be free workmen was not known; they were not invited to stay on until the time for their repatriation came round; no census had been or could be taken of those wishing to remain until he knew the conditions under which they would be permitted to stay here, and finally,' what seemed to me a "get-out" opinion was expressed when he said that most of them wanted to go home. I contend that this kind of inconsistency, and even contradiction, between Ministers simply will not do. Either we want these men or we do not want them. All the evidence, I contend, proves that we are in dire need of their services for a long time ahead.
This is precisely one of those cases in which the Government should give an imaginative lead to the country and more narrowly to the trade union most closely affected. I refer to the Agricultural Workers Union, which is, quite properly, jealous of the rights of British workers. I want to insist that, in no circumstances, would I advocate the employment of any foreigner if this would adversely affect the employment of our own people. But we are facing a shortage of manpower not alone in agriculture, and it cannot be beyond the wit of the Minister's officials to devise a system which safeguards completely the status and position of our own workers. With the approaching removal of the Control of Engagements Order from

farming, plus the many would-be emigrants to the Dominions, many of whom have been hitherto tied in this country to the land, I predict an acute manpower crisis in agriculture in the not very distant future. Immediate action, therefore, is needed to meet this. As it is, I believe that the agricultural industry could easily absorb no less than 100,000 extra workers in present conditions. In these circumstances, it is, in my judgment, sheer madness to turn away these first-class potential recruits, keen to help us on the land, who are available among German prisoners of war. In another month's time, all the workers we can get will be needed to cope with haymaking and the hoeing of root crops.
I expect I shall be told by the Minister that the Poles must first be absorbed, and then the displaced persons, who are already arriving from the Continent. Apart from the undesirability of perpetuating the racial discrimination, this attitude involves now the war is over, and taking into account the fact that I believe we have no moral right forcibly to keep the Germans here at all, this argument I contend is a bad one. I say this because I believe that the best Poles have already opted to go home, and in view of the categorical assurance given recently by the Polish Ambassador in London, I hope that far more of them will see this as their duty. Indeed, I urge the Government to use all the persuasion they can, short of force, to bring this about, and thus to improve our relations with Poland. Neither the Poles nor the displaced persons whom it is proposed to employ here have experience or knowledge of the agricultural industry which is so ably demonstrated by thousands of Germans in our midst at present and already actually on the job. All these newcomers would need a long period of training and initiation into the peculiar conditions of British agriculture.
Before more prisoners of war are allowed to drift back to the misery and destitution of unemployment in Germany, as so many have done, I suggest that the following steps should be immediately put in hand. First a census of prisoners of war should be taken to find out how many are willing to remain here as free workmen under conditions carefully worked out so as to safeguard the status of British employees. These men should be registered in categories according to their


experience and abilities in farming. I calculate that at least 20,000 are anxious to stay under suitable civilian conditions; secondly, I suggest that a labour pool comprising those who can be released and replaced in their present jobs and who wish to stay here should be formed. Thirdly, those farmers who are losing prisoners through repatriation and are unable to obtain British labour should be registered through county agricultural executive committees as prospective employers of those men in the labour pool, the creation of which I advocate. Lastly, details of the scheme decided on should be promulgated to all camps to allay the many false rumours in circulation there, and to disprove the criticism of commandants and officers by the prisoners to the effect that they are being deliberately kept in the dark. For prisoners of war to get a preview of all this through the radio and the Press is most undesirable especially as there is already an average time lag of three weeks between the making of official Government decisions and camp action. I ask the Minister to assure us that the earliest attention will be given to this whole subject, and that rapid action will follow.

1.6 a.m.

Viscount Hinchingbroke: Without committing myself to the detailed proposals made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) I would like to give general support to the main scheme. Some time ago, the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) had a Motion on the Order Paper asking that all German prisoners of war should be sent back to Germany by next Christmas. About forty of my hon. Friends and I put down an Amendment asking that, in this case, where the Germans agreed to stay, they should be allowed to do so under some scheme to be worked out by the Government, with agreed conditions of pay and employment. Those Germans who wish to return to Germany should be allowed to go, but a number of them would desire to stay if given the opportunity. Some of them are becoming more and more acclimatised, and although I have no figure in mind, the hon. Member for Bedford mentioned 20,000. I have no knowledge whether that is a true figure or not. But it is now being proposed that the Italians who went home as returned prisoners of war should be invited back, and it seems to me that something of that

same kind will happen with these Germans unless we are careful. In other words, a great deal of time and effort will be wasted in sending men back to Germany who will, in the last resort, desire to return here.
I would like to ask the Government to say whether they cannot stop that waste of movement. Our agricultural position is very serious, and we need every man on the soil for whom we can find supplies. I realise that the position of the Poles must be fully safeguarded. I should not associate myself with the hon. Member opposite who says no German should be employed here if that turns out some other man. Poles are being placed in employment, and I should like the Government to consider if some framework of the same kind—some German resettlement corps—could not be worked out. I think that something might be done 'in the way of sending representatives from the camps in this country to Germany to see what the conditions are there, so that they could come back and report to the men. Many of the Germans over here do not know what are the conditions in their own country, but this could be done without exercising any persuasion to get the men to return. The Government could very well give attention to this matter.

1.9 a.m.

Mr. Driberg: I wish to speak for only a few minutes, but I would like to say that I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) for having raised this matter, for having staked out my modest claim to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and also I might say, for having occupied only seven minutes of his own half-hour. I only want to make two main points. First, it is absolutely necessary that there should be proper and full consultation with the Agricultural Workers' Unions, as well as with the National Farmers' Union, on this matter. I do not know how much consultation there has been already, but I believe that the first reaction from the Agricultural Workers' Unions have been unfavourable. I cannot help feeling that if there had been proper preliminary consultation, or if there were now full consultations, the unions would possibly adopt a reasonable and generous attitude comparable with that adopted in January by the Mineworkers Union with regard to the Poles, and would agree to a limited and strictly controlled importation of this


kind of labour into their sphere of activity.
I, personally, support very strongly the view of the Agricultural Workers Union, as I understand it, that our first aim should be to make our countryside, rural life and rural industry attractive to our own people, to provide proper homes and amenities for all the British agricultural workers and potential workers in agriculture. I am sure that is the Government's view also. But that cannot be done in one or two years. The need for labour is so urgent for this and next year's harvest that it would be folly to cast away the services of perhaps several thousand young men, prisoners who are among the minority who are anxious to stay here and who are on the whole settling down very happily and doing an extremely good job in agriculture. Obviously, as the Secretary of State for War said, most of them want to go back home and I am among those hon. Members—like the noble Lord and the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes)—who have pressed for a much speedier repatriation. But there is, none the less, this minority, perhaps prisoners who have lost their own homes, lost their families in Germany, with no ties there, who do not know where they are going to go or what to do when they go back there, and who have made certain ties here, with the reasonable relaxation of the regulations which the Secretary of State for War has so wisely allowed. Therefore I say that this minority should certainly be allowed to stay here as free, paid workers under conditions which will not make them in any way dangerous competitors to the British agricultural worker.
My last point is this. I was puzzled and worried by the extremely vague answers given last Tuesday by the Secretary of State for War. He seemed to be going back on what the Minister of Agriculture had already said. He said that no detailed scheme had yet been worked out, and no inquiries had been addressed to the prisoners. That conflicts with the information which I have derived from an official publication of the Control Office, the newspaper Wochenpost, issued officially for prisoners of war, which, as I understand it, gave a definite figure some weeks ago of something like 900 men—out of the first batch who had been consulted—who opted to stay here as free,

paid workers. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to clear up this apparent discrepancy between the departments. I am sure that he will be able to show to our satisfaction that there has not been, in fact, any muddle. But I hope that he will be able also to show satisfactorily how this appearance of muddle has arisen.

1.14 a.m.

Mr. Baldwin: I have only time to make one point. It is of importance that the German prisoners should be kept at least for this season. We are desperately short of men. But after two years, I think it is time that these prisoners of war were paid appropriately for the work they are doing. It is disgraceful to think that these men are being paid twopence halfpenny an hour while farmers pay one shilling and fourpence for their work. We can never get good work out of these men if we are paying them in a disgraceful fashion which makes them slaves. We should educate them in the fairness of British traditions, and not give them the impression that we are keeping them as slaves after two years. Let my hon. Friend tell us that we are going to pay these men, not give them slave rates.

1.15 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): I would like in the short time at my disposal to answer as many as possible of the points that have been advanced The Germans are only a part of the general manpower problem and must not be looked at in isolation. Might I indicate to the House what the general position is. We had the Balt Cygnet scheme under which displaced persons were brought over for domestic work in sanatoria and hospitals, and we now have the Westward Ho scheme, for displaced persons generally from Germany and Austria. We hope very soon to have worked up to a rate of 4,000 a month from displaced persons camps in Austria and Germany. Then there is the Polish resettlement scheme and the Ministry of Labour must have regard to its obligation to get these men placed in civilian employment in this country. We have now something like 76,000 Poles available for labour, and so tar, we have placed 6,869 in civilian employment on an individual basis. We have 109 camps ready in industrial areas to receive them as soon as we can provide employment for them. Farmers and county agricultural


committees have been asked to apply for Poles to make up their manpower requirements. That no doubt will come along but recently we have had a slowing-up in the programme. I expect in the next month or so substantial claims for these men but the House will realise our first obligation is to render all Polish men available for employment in this country. As we are maintaining them at our expense, for which we are getting no return, they are the men who should first be put to real and effective work to help our economy.
Then there are the Italian prisoners of war whom we are allowing to come back to the farms in this country with these special conditions, that they must not displace British workers—that has been agreed on both sides of the House—and that accommodation must not be provided for them on the farms on which they are going to work which ought to be available for British people. There are now under consideration 450 applications by farmers. There are of course some 1,400 Italians still working on farms and billeted in farms in this country.
I now come to the question of German prisoners of war. As the House knows we are committed under the White Paper—Economic Survey for 1947—to get from all these non-British sources 100,000 new workers. We have in the country 163,500 Germans who are allocated for agriculture. I want the House to be assured of this, there is no intention of decreasing that number, which will be available for the next harvest. There will be at the next harvest, in this country available for agriculture, 165,000 Germans prisoners.

Mr. Stubbs: That is a fleabite.

Mr. Edwards: Of these 19,000 are billeted with farmers. That pool of labour will be available, in addition to which there are the 76,000 Poles for whom so far agriculture has made no demand. Now what is the use of saying this is a fleabite when we have 76,000 men eating their heads off at our expense for whom the agricultural industry is not making a demand. There is the position. I ask that in considering this whole problem we shall have due regard to the fact that here are substantial pools of manpower which we are satisfied can be used. But there is the other factor that employing Poles on a civilian basis may be a little

more costly than employing prisoner of war gang labour. There is the question of holidays and insurance. All those things enter into it. I am not so certain that a continuation of prisoner of war labour is going to be helpful in the resettlement of the Poles.
Now I come to the question of the scheme that has been announced. That concerns the right or entitlement of farmers who are now employing German prisoners of war to retain those men on a civilian basis if the prisoners of war are prepared to stay. We must approach this not from the point of view of the German prisoners of war. We must approach it from the point of view of the needs of our own economy, and the first demand must come from the farmer who is employing German prisoners of war. If the farmer feels that he can continue to employ a German prisoner of war and can provide him with accommodation, and the German prisoner of war is prepared to stay, in those cases the farmer will be asked to communicate with the agricultural executive committees who, will institute the arrangements for the transfer of the man from prisoner of war status to civilian status for an experimental period.

Mr. Michael Foot: Is it the farmers' responsibility to find out whether the prisoners want to stay here? Is the farmer to find out that before he writes to the Ministry?

Mr. Stubbs: The farmer will find out from the prisoner who is working for him?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The farmer will find out from the prisoner. Between the prisoner and the farmer there is a fairly regularised and intimate relationship. If the farmer thinks the prisoner is a good fellow, he will want to keep him. The farmer will ask the prisoner of war if he wants to stay. If he wants to stay he will stay on the basis of a civilian rate of wages.

Mr. Stubbs: Will it be the agricultural wages minimum?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes. He will be treated as a civilian. The farmer will make application to the county agricultural executive committee who, will arrange for the release of the man.

Mr. Stubbs: Do I understand that it will be the agricultural labourers' minimum?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I answered "Yes." I thought I answered it loudly enough to be heard in all parts of the House. The answer is "Yes." It will be the agricultural wage as fixed by the Agricultural Wages Board.

Mr. Stubbs: Wages and hours?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Wages and hours. There will be nothing to prevent the farmer from paying extra if he wishes. I come to the point raised by the noble Lord the Member for Southern Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). That was with regard to these men having the right to go back to Germany and to be called back in the same way as now applies in the case of the Italian prisoners of war. I, do not know whether the noble Lord was in the House this afternoon when I was pressed by hon. Members opposite to let the German prisoners of war go back to Germany and then be called back here. I undertook to give that matter consideration but, as the noble Lord will recognise, he is asking me to do something entirely different from what I was pressed to do this afternoon.

Mr. Baldwin: Either will do.

Mr. Ness Edwards: There is the straight position. If the farmer wants the German, and the German is prepared to stay, and if he is not robbing the Britisher of accommodation or preventing a British worker from getting employment, the German prisoner of war will be allowed to stay on a civilian basis until the end of this year. That is the scheme. It is true that the National Farmers' Union has been informed of this scheme, and the Agricultural Workers' Union has been informed—

Mr. Stubbs: Unions.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The unions have been informed. With regard to the National Farmers Union, they are partial to the scheme, but they want more details, and that is in process of being attended to. With regard to the Agricultural Workers Unions—

Mr. Stubbs: Thank you.

Mr. Ness Edwards: —we have had some communications which so far are not encouraging. We hope to be able to satisfy the Agricultural Workers Unions that the terms and conditions on which the German prisoners of war will be

allowed to stay here will be such as not to prejudice the rights of British employees. Our problem of food production in this country is tremendously urgent. We want all the men we can get. I have indicated the pool of labour that is available. What we are anxious about is that it shall be used.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Would the hon. Gentleman answer one question? Has this scheme which he has more or less endorsed been promulgated as yet to the prisoner of war camps, so that the prisoners know of it, and are given an opportunity of volunteering for permanent work here for twelve months?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am afraid that my hon. Friend misunderstands the position. It is not for the German prisoner of war to volunteer to stay here. It is for the farmer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Oh, yes, it is for the farmer—

Mr. Driberg: rose—

Mr. Ness Edwards: —to ask for a German to be employed on his farm.

Mr. Beswick: rose—

Mr. Ness Edwards: We cannot have in this country a lot of volunteers from all sorts of sources for whom we cannot find employment. We cannot mix the Poles with the Germans. We cannot put the Italians among them. We have to try to get them in different areas. All this is bound to cause some trouble in getting these people settled down.

Mr. Beswick: Has the farmer endorsed this scheme?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I was coming to that point. The National Farmers Union are now discussing the thing generally, but until we have cleared the position, which will be soon—

Mr. Stubbs: You have no agreement.

Mr. Ness Edwards: —we do not propose to promulgate this in the orders of German prisoner-of-war camps.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTYSPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Order made upon 13th November.

Adjourned at Twenty-eight Minutes past One o'Clock.